Using advanced oxidation protein products and ischaemia-modified albumin to monitor oxidative stress levels in patients with drug-induced liver injury

✅ 全文

利用高级氧化蛋白产物和缺血修饰白蛋白监测药物性肝损伤患者的氧化应激水平

作者 Lanlan Xiao; Fen Zhang; Yalei Zhao; Lingjian Zhang; Zhongyang Xie; Kaizhou Huang; Xiaoxi Ouyang; Xiaoxin Wu; Xiaowei Xu; Lanjuan Li 期刊 Scientific Reports 发表日期 2020 ISSN 2045-2322 DOI 10.1038/s41598-020-75141-2 类型 原创研究 (Original Research)

📄 中文摘要 Chinese Abstract

中文
药物性肝损伤(DILI)是一种罕见但可能严重的临床疾病,可导致黄疸、肝功能衰竭甚至死亡。由于缺乏特异性生物标志物且致病药物种类繁多,其诊断仍具挑战性。氧化应激在DILI发病机制中起核心作用,通过活性氧(ROS)介导的蛋白质、脂质和DNA损伤导致细胞损害。高级氧化蛋白产物(AOPPs)和缺血修饰白蛋白(IMA)是新兴的氧化应激生物标志物:AOPPs反映蛋白质氧化,而IMA则源于缺血或氧化条件下白蛋白的结构改变。尽管两者在慢性肝病中已有研究,但其在急性DILI中监测氧化应激及评估严重程度的价值尚不明确。

📋 英文结构化总结 English Structured Summary

全文整理

EN

Background:

Idiosyncratic drug-induced liver injury (DILI) is a rare but potentially severe clinical condition that can lead to jaundice, liver failure, or death. Its diagnosis remains challenging due to the lack of specific biomarkers and the wide variety of causative agents. Oxidative stress plays a central role in DILI pathogenesis, contributing to cellular damage through reactive oxygen species (ROS)-mediated injury to proteins, lipids, and DNA. Advanced oxidation protein products (AOPPs) and ischemia-modified albumin (IMA) are emerging oxidative stress biomarkers; AOPPs reflect protein oxidation, while IMA results from structural changes in albumin under ischemic or oxidative conditions. Although both have been studied in chronic liver diseases, their utility in monitoring oxidative stress and assessing severity in acute DILI has not been well established.

Methods:

This single-center study enrolled 128 hospitalized patients with DILI (68 non-severe, 60 severe) and 38 healthy controls between January 2018 and October 2019. DILI diagnosis followed standardized criteria, including biochemical thresholds and exclusion of other liver diseases. Severity was graded according to the DILIN classification (grades 0–5). Serum levels of AOPPs and IMA were measured using spectrophotometric assays at admission and discharge. AOPPs were quantified using a commercial kit, and IMA was assessed via a colorimetric cobalt-albumin binding method. Ratios of AOPPs/albumin and IMA/albumin were calculated to adjust for albumin levels. Correlations between biomarkers and clinical parameters (e.g., ALT, TBIL, ALP) were analyzed, and AUROC curves evaluated the ability of each marker to predict severe DILI.

Results:

Baseline serum levels of AOPPs, IMA, AOPPs/albumin, and IMA/albumin were significantly higher in DILI patients compared to healthy controls (P < 0.001). The severe DILI group had markedly elevated levels of all four markers compared to the non-severe group (e.g., AOPPs: 235.7 ± 86.5 vs. 124.8 ± 61.8 μmol/L; IMA: 1.8 ± 0.7 vs. 0.7 ± 0.3 ABSU; P < 0.001). After treatment, all biomarker levels decreased significantly in both patient groups (P < 0.001). Correlation analysis showed strong positive associations between IMA and total bilirubin (r = 0.809, P < 0.001) and between IMA and disease severity (r = 0.726, P < 0.001). AUROC analysis demonstrated that IMA had the highest discriminatory power for severe DILI (AUROC = 0.959), outperforming AOPPs (0.839), AOPPs/albumin (0.821), and IMA/albumin (0.954).

Data Summary:

Key quantitative findings include: mean baseline AOPPs of 176.8 ± 92.6 μmol/L in DILI patients vs. 40.1 ± 14.2 μmol/L in controls; IMA levels of 1.3 ± 0.8 ABSU vs. 0.3 ± 0.1 ABSU; AOPPs/albumin ratio of 5.1 ± 3.1 μmol/g vs. 0.8 ± 0.3 μmol/g; and IMA/albumin ratio of 0.3 ± 0.2 vs. 0.07 ± 0.02 ABSU·dL/g (all P < 0.001). In the severe group, IMA correlated most strongly with TBIL (r = 0.809) and severity grade (r = 0.726). The AUROC for IMA in predicting severe DILI was 0.959 (95% CI not provided), indicating excellent diagnostic performance.

Conclusions:

The study demonstrates that oxidative stress is significantly elevated in DILI patients, as reflected by increased serum levels of AOPPs and IMA and their albumin-adjusted ratios. These biomarkers decrease following effective treatment, suggesting their utility in monitoring therapeutic response. Among the markers tested, IMA showed the strongest correlation with disease severity and the highest AUROC value, indicating it is the most reliable single biomarker for assessing DILI severity. While AOPPs and IMA cannot predict progression to chronic DILI, they offer valuable real-time insights into oxidative damage and clinical status during acute illness.

Practical Significance:

AOPPs and IMA can serve as practical, measurable biomarkers to monitor oxidative stress levels and assess the severity of drug-induced liver injury in clinical settings. Their integration with standard liver function tests may enhance early risk stratification, support treatment decisions, and improve patient management—particularly in identifying high-risk individuals who may require closer monitoring or intensive care.

📋 中文结构化总结 Chinese Structured Summary

中文

背景:

药物性肝损伤(DILI)是一种罕见但可能严重的临床疾病,可导致黄疸、肝功能衰竭甚至死亡。由于缺乏特异性生物标志物且致病药物种类繁多,其诊断仍具挑战性。氧化应激在DILI发病机制中起核心作用,通过活性氧(ROS)介导的蛋白质、脂质和DNA损伤导致细胞损害。高级氧化蛋白产物(AOPPs)和缺血修饰白蛋白(IMA)是新兴的氧化应激生物标志物:AOPPs反映蛋白质氧化,而IMA则源于缺血或氧化条件下白蛋白的结构改变。尽管两者在慢性肝病中已有研究,但其在急性DILI中监测氧化应激及评估严重程度的价值尚不明确。

方法:

本研究为单中心研究,于2018年1月至2019年10月期间纳入128例住院DILI患者(68例非重症,60例重症)及38例健康对照者。DILI诊断依据标准化标准,包括生化指标阈值及排除其他肝病。严重程度按DILIN分级标准(0–5级)进行分级。在入院和出院时采用分光光度法检测血清AOPPs和IMA水平。AOPPs采用商品化试剂盒定量,IMA采用比色法钴-白蛋白结合法测定。计算AOPPs/白蛋白和IMA/白蛋白比值以校正白蛋白水平。分析生物标志物与临床参数(如ALT、TBIL、ALP)之间的相关性,并通过AUROC曲线评估各标志物预测重症DILI的能力。

结果:

DILI患者基线血清AOPPs、IMA、AOPPs/白蛋白及IMA/白蛋白水平均显著高于健康对照组(P < 0.001)。重症DILI组上述四项指标水平均显著高于非重症组(例如:AOPPs:235.7 ± 86.5 vs. 124.8 ± 61.8 μmol/L;IMA:1.8 ± 0.7 vs. 0.7 ± 0.3 ABSU;P < 0.001)。治疗后,两组患者各生物标志物水平均显著下降(P < 0.001)。相关性分析显示,IMA与总胆红素呈强正相关(r = 0.809,P < 0.001),与疾病严重程度亦呈强正相关(r = 0.726,P < 0.001)。AUROC分析表明,IMA对重症DILI的鉴别能力最强(AUROC = 0.959),优于AOPPs(0.839)、AOPPs/白蛋白(0.821)和IMA/白蛋白(0.954)。

数据总结:

主要定量结果如下:DILI患者基线AOPPs均值为176.8 ± 92.6 μmol/L,对照组为40.1 ± 14.2 μmol/L;IMA水平分别为1.3 ± 0.8 ABSU与0.3 ± 0.1 ABSU;AOPPs/白蛋白比值分别为5.1 ± 3.1 μmol/g与0.8 ± 0.3 μmol/g;IMA/白蛋白比值分别为0.3 ± 0.2与0.07 ± 0.02 ABSU·dL/g(均P < 0.001)。在重症组中,IMA与TBIL(r = 0.809)及严重程度分级(r = 0.726)相关性最强。IMA预测重症DILI的AUROC为0.959(未提供95% CI),提示其具有优异的诊断性能。

结论:

本研究证实DILI患者氧化应激显著增强,表现为血清AOPPs、IMA及其白蛋白校正比值升高。治疗后这些生物标志物水平下降,提示其可用于监测治疗效果。在所检测的标志物中,IMA与疾病严重程度的相关性最强且AUROC值最高,表明其是评估DILI严重程度最可靠的单一生物标志物。尽管AOPPs和IMA无法预测向慢性DILI的进展,但可为急性期氧化损伤和临床状态提供有价值的实时信息。

实际意义:

AOPPs和IMA可作为实用的可测量生物标志物,用于临床监测药物性肝损伤患者的氧化应激水平及评估病情严重程度。将其与常规肝功能检测相结合,有助于早期风险分层、支持治疗决策并改善患者管理——尤其有助于识别需密切监护或重症监护的高危个体。

📖 英文全文 English Full Text

EN

1579 scirep Scientific Reports Sci Rep Nature Publishing Group PMC7582878 7582878 7582878 33093629 10.1038/s41598-020-75141-2 Using advanced oxidation protein products and ischaemia-modified albumin to monitor oxidative stress levels in patients with drug-induced liver injury Xiao Lan-Lan 1 # Zhang Fen 1 # Zhao Ya-Lei 1 Zhang Ling-Jian 1 Xie Zhong-Yang 1 Huang Kai-Zhou 2 Ouyang Xiao-Xi 1 Wu Xiao-Xin 1 Xu Xiao-Wei 1 ✉ Li Lan-Juan 1 ✉ 1 State Key Laboratory for Diagnosis and Treatment of Infectious Diseases, National Clinical Research Center for Infectious Diseases, Collaborative Innovation Center for Diagnosis and Treatment of Infectious Diseases, The First Affiliated Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China 2 Shantou Central Hospital, Affiliated Shantou Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangdong, China ✉ Corresponding author. # Contributed equally. 22 10 2020 10 18128 18128 23 10 2020 © The Author(s) 2020 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . Abstract Increased oxidative stress levels play a key role in idiosyncratic drug-induced liver injury (DILI) pathogenesis. To investigated whether advanced oxidation protein products (AOPPs) and ischaemia-modified albumin (IMA) can be used to monitor oxidative stress in DILI patients and to assess disease severity. We performed spectrophotometric assays to assess AOPPs and IMA in 68 DILI patients with severity grade 0–2 (non-severe group), 60 with severity grade 3–5 (severe group), and 38 healthy controls. The results showed that baseline AOPPs and IMA serum levels and AOPPs/albumin and IMA/albumin ratios were significantly higher in DILI patients than in healthy controls. Besides, in comparison to the non-severe group, the severe group showed higher baseline AOPPs and IMA serum levels and AOPPs/albumin and IMA/albumin ratios. AOPPs and IMA serum levels and AOPPs/albumin and IMA/albumin ratios decreased after treatment in both patient groups. Combining the correlation analysis and areas under the receiver operating curve (AUROCs) analysis results, that IMA outperformed to be one is the most reliable marker to assess disease severity of DILI. Our findings indicated that AOPPs and IMA can serve as key biomarkers for monitoring oxidative stress levels in DILI patients and can indicate disease severity. The IMA outperformed to be one of the most reliable oxidative stress biomarkers to assess disease severity of DILI. Subject terms: Biomarkers, Diseases, Gastroenterology status released display-pdf yes is-olf no is-manuscript no is-preprint no is-journal-matter no is-scanned no is-retracted no Received 2020 Jan 14; Accepted 2020 Oct 9; Collection date 2020. Introduction Idiosyncratic drug-induced liver injury (DILI) is a rare clinical disorder and can lead to jaundice, liver failure or even death 1 . Its annual morbidity in developed nations approximately ranges between 1/100,000 and 20/100,000 2 , 3 . In China, the acute DILI accounts for approximately 20% of ALF-related hospitalizations 4 ; however, a reliable incidence rate for DILI in the general population remains unknown. People who develop hepatocellular DILI with jaundice show a mortality rate of at least 10%, and patients with DILI who eventually develop ALF show only a 25% chance of spontaneous recovery 5 . Considering the wide range of presentations and array of drugs used in clinical practice and due to the lack of specific biomarkers, the diagnosing DILI is still a particularly difficult process; in fact, DILI remains one of the most challenging liver disorders faced by hepatologists 6 . The pathogenesis of DILI is not well characterized. The probable pathogenesis of idiosyncratic DILI involves the inadvertent generation of a reactive metabolite or drug–protein complex that can directly or indirectly mediate damage to intracellular proteins and/or organelles, consequently inducing ‘danger’ signals (oxidative stress, mitochondrial damage, endoplasmic reticulum stress and bile salt export pump inhibition) 6 . Oxidative stress reportedly plays a key role in DILI, which is known to affect cell membranes, proteins and DNA and can lead to apoptosis and cell death, ultimately causing liver dysfunction. The liver is vulnerable to oxidative stress, and sustained oxidative stress has been suggested to play a pivotal role in the initiation and progression of liver diseases 7 , 8 . Witko-Sarsat et al. in 1996 proposed the measurement of advanced oxidation protein products (AOPPs) to reliably estimate the degree of oxidant-mediated protein damage in uremic patients 9 . Since then, AOPPs have been used as an oxidative stress biomarker 9 , 10 and inflammation mediators 11 , 12 . They evidently play a critical role in the pathological process of diverse diseases and their complications, particularly in chronic kidney diseases 13 . In the past decade, advances have been made to understand the role of AOPPs in various liver diseases 14 ; however, there is little clinical evidence regarding whether a potential link exists between AOPPs and acute liver injury, specifically in case of DILI. Ischaemia-modified albumin (IMA) is a known myocardial infarction biomarker 15 ; nevertheless, IMA levels may also increase in conditions of non-cardiac ischaemia, such as liver cirrhosis and metabolic syndrome 16 , 17 . The albumin (ALB) molecule in the plasma of diabetic patients is modified in chronic hypoxia conditions, mainly provoked by hyperglycaemia and oxidative stress 18 . Several studies have demonstrated that reactive oxygen species (ROS) can generate the highly reactive hydroxyl radical, causing a conformational change to the N-terminus of the ALB moiety and eventually resulting in IMA production 19 . IMA is a novel oxidative stress biomarker that has been shown to be elevated in chronic liver diseases 20 . Despite this, to date, the relationship between IMA and DILI development remains unexplained. In this study, we focused on AOPPs and IMA serum levels and determined AOPPs/ALB and IMA/ALB ratios in patients with DILI during treatment. Moreover, we explored the association between oxidative stress biomarkers and severity and prognosis of DILI. Results Characteristics of enrolled subjects Between January 2018 and October 2019, 167 inpatients were screened. Only 128 patients with ‘highly probable’ or ‘probable’ causality and 38 healthy controls (HCs) were eventually enrolled. Of the 128 patients with DILI, 68 were included in the non-severe group and 60 in the severe group. Almost all patients recovered after treatment; one patient in the severe group died within 90 days. 25 (19.5%) patients were developed to chronic DILI, 14 (20.6%) in non-severe group, and 11 (18.3%) in severe group. The most common pattern of liver injury was hepatocellular (observed in 102 [79.7%] and 48 [80.0%] patients in the non-severe and severe groups, respectively). In comparison to patients in the non-severe group, those in the severe group tended to be clinically jaundiced (P < 0.001), were less likely to have diabetes and tended to have higher alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and total bilirubin (TBIL) levels (P = 0.022 and P < 0.001, respectively). Herbal or dietary supplements were the most common causative agents, accounting for 98 (76.6%) cases; other causative agents included antimicrobials [7 (5.5%) cases] and cardiovascular drugs [4 (3.1%) cases]. The characteristics of all participants are listed in Table 1 . Table 1 Demographic, clinical, and laboratory parameters of the subjects. DILI Healthy control (n = 38) P All patients (n = 128) Non-severe group (n = 68) Severe group (n = 60) Age (year, mean [SD]) 50.61 (14.8) 50.2 (15.6) 51.1 (14.1) 44.0 (13.2) 0.792 Female (%) 89 (69.5) 49 (72.1) 40 (66.7) 21 (55.3) 0.508 Alcohol use 20 (15.6) 8 (11.8) 12 (20.0) – 0.200 Preexiting liver disease 28 (21.9) 16 (23.5) 12 (20.0) – 0.630 Hypertension 22 (17.2) 12 (17.6) 10 (16.7) – 0.883 Diabetes mellitus 20 (15.6) 16 (23.5) 4 (6.7) – 0.009 Jaundice 52 (40.6) 12 (17.6) 40 (66.7) – < 0.001 Causative drugs-HDS 98 (76.6) 46 (67.6) 52 (86.7) – 0.011 Latency 0.258 < 5 days 9 (7.0) 5 (7.4) 4 (6.7) – 5–90 days 111 (86.7) 61 (89.7) 50 (83.3) –  > 90 days 8 (6.3) 2 (2.9) 6 (10.0) – RUCAM 0.649 Highly probable (> 8) 74 39 35 – Probable (6–8) 46 21 25 – Pattern of liver injury (%) 0.453 Hepatocellular 102 (79.7) 54 (79.4) 48 (80.0) – Cholestatic 8 (6.3) 4 (5.9) 4 (6.7) – Mixed 18 (14.1) 10 (14.7) 8 (13.3) – Death by 90th day 1 (0.8) 0 1 (3.9) – 0.285 Liver biochemistries at admission Chronic DILI 25 (19.5) 14 (20.6) 11 (18.3) – 0.748 ALT (U/L) 665.02 (486.1) 535.12 (342.9) 812.2 (580.8) 20.6 (9.9) 0.022 AST (U/L) 382.9 (311.1) 272.6 (169.8) 507.9 (383.4) 19.7 (5.6) 0.004 ALP (U/L) 68.9 (15.7) 158.4 (75.2) 183.3 (90.7) 68.9 (15.7) 0.235 TBIL (mg/dL) 5.8 (5.9) 1.8 (1.3) 10.4 (5.7) 0.7 (0.3) < 0.001 GGT (U/L) 206.7 (183.2) 186.5 (166.3) 228.2 (200.2) 25.1 (15.7) 0.379 ALB (g/L) 38.9 (4.2) 39.9 (3.7) 37.7 (4.4) 46.5 (3.4) 0.036 INR 1.0 (0.2) 1.0 (0.1) 1.0 (0.2) – 0.079 AOPPs (μmol/L) 176.8 (92.6) 124.8 (61.8) 235.7 (86.5) 40.1 (14.2) < 0.001 AOPPs/Albumin (μmol/g) 5.1 (3.1) 3.1 (1.2) 7.4 (2.9) 0.8 (0.3) < 0.001 IMA (ABSU) 1.3 (0.8) 0.7 (0.3) 1.8 (0.7) 0.3 (0.1) < 0.001 IMA/Albumin (ABSU*dL/g) 0.3 (0.2) 0.2 (0.1) 0.5 (0.2) 0.07 (0.02) < 0.001 Liver biochemistries on discharge ALT (U/L) 205.4 (161.1) 193.4 (123.8) 219.8 (198.4) – 0.518 AST (U/L) 96.6 (71.4) 85.3 (63.7) 109.5 (78.2) – 0.184 ALP (U/L) 139.0 (62.1) 145.5 (74.3) 131.2 (43.0) – 0.364 TBIL (mg/dL) 3.1 (3.2) 1.4 (1.4) 5.1 (3.7) – < 0.001 GGT (U/L) 172.4 (185.8) 155.1 (147.1) 193.3 (224.8) – 0.418 ALB (g/L) 37.09 (4.0) 38.0 (3.7) 36.0 (4.2) – 0.518 INR 1.0 (0.1) 0.9 (0.1) 1.0 (0.2) – 0.014 AOPPs (μmol/L) 96.6 (52.2) 77.8 (30.3) 118.0 (62.8) – < 0.001 AOPPs/Albumin (μmol/g) 2.7 (2.0) 1.9 (0.6) 3.5 (2.5) – < 0.001 IMA (ABSU) 0.8 (0.5) 0.6 (0.2) 1.1 (0.5) – < 0.001 IMA/Albumin (ABSU*dL/g) 0.2 (0.1) 0.1 (0.06) 0.3 (0.1) – < 0.001 Data are mean ± SD, or number (percentage). P-values for comparisons between non-severe group and severe group. DILI drug-induced liver injury, SD standard deviation, HDS herbal or dietary supplements, RUCAM Roussel Uclaf causality assessment method, ALT alanine aminotransferase, AST aspartate aminotransferase, ALP alkaline phosphatase, TBIL total bilirubin, GGT γ-glutamyl transpeptidase, ALB albumin, INR international normalized ratio, AOPPs advanced oxidation protein products, IMA ischemia-modified albumin. AOPPs serum levels and AOPPs/ALB ratio At admission, patients with DILI showed significantly higher AOPPs serum levels (176.8 ± 92.6 μmol/L) and AOPPs/ALB ratio (5.1 ± 3.1 μmol/g) as compared to those shown by HCs (40.1 ± 14.2 μmol/L and 0.8 ± 0.3 μmol/g, respectively, P < 0.001; Table 1 ). In comparison to the non-severe group, baseline AOPPs serum levels and AOPPs/ALB ratio was noticeably higher in the severe group (124.8 ± 61.8 μmol/L vs. 235.7 ± 86.5 μmol/L and 3.1 ± 1.2 μmol/g vs. 7.4 ± 2.9 μmol/g, respectively, P < 0.001; Figs.  1 A, 3 A). After treatment, AOPPs serum levels and AOPPs/ALB ratio (at discharge) significantly decreased both in the non-severe and severe groups (P < 0.001, respectively; Figs.  2 A,B, 4 A). Figure 1 Baseline serum levels of advanced oxidation protein products (AOPPs) and ischaemia-modified albumin (IMA) in patients with drug-induced liver injury and healthy controls (HCs). ( A ) AOPPs levels. ( B ) IMA levels. ***P < 0.001. ABSU absorbance units. Figure 3 Baseline advanced oxidation protein products (AOPPs)/albumin and ischaemia-modified albumin (IMA)/albumin ratios in patients with drug-induced liver injury and healthy controls (HCs). (A) AOPPs/albumin ratio. ( B ) IMA/albumin ratio. ***P < 0.001. ABSU absorbance units. Figure 2 Serum levels of advanced oxidation protein products (AOPPs) and ischaemia-modified albumin (IMA) in patients with drug-induced liver injury before and after treatment. ( A ) AOPPs levels in the non-severe group. ( B ) AOPPs levels in the severe group. ( C ) IMA levels in the non-severe group. ( D ) IMA levels in the severe group. ***P < 0.001. ABSU absorbance units. Figure 4 Advanced oxidation protein products (AOPPs)/albumin and ischaemia-modified albumin (IMA)/albumin ratios in patients with drug-induced liver injury before and after treatment. ( A ) AOPPs/albumin ratio in the non-severe and severe groups before and after treatment. ( B ) IMA/albumin ratio in the non-severe and severe groups before and after treatment. ***P < 0.001. ABSU absorbance units. IMA serum levels and IMA/ALB ratio At admission, patients with DILI showed significantly higher IMA serum levels [1.3 ± 0.8 absorbance units (ABSU)] and IMA/ALB ratio (0.3 ± 0.2 ABSU*dL/g) as compared to those shown by HCs (0.3 ± 0.1 ABSU and 0.07 ± 0.02 ABSU*dL/g, respectively, P < 0.001; Table 1 ). Further, patients in the non-severe group showed lower IMA serum levels and IMA/ALB ratio than those in the severe group (0.7 ± 0.3 ABSU vs. 1.8 ± 0.7 ABSU and 0.2 ± 0.1 ABSU*dL/g vs. 0.5 ± 0.2 ABSU*dL/g, respectively, P < 0.001; Figs.  1 B, 3 B). After treatment, IMA serum levels and IMA/ALB ratio decreased both in the non-severe group and severe groups (P < 0.001, respectively; Figs.  2 C,D, 4 B). The performances of oxidative stress biomarkers in assessment of severity for patients with DILI Using the baseline data of 128 patients with DILI, we analysed the correlation between oxidative stress biomarkers and clinical parameters (Table 2 ). Interestingly, that AOPPs, AOPPs/ALB ratio, IMA, IMA/ALB ratio were all positively correlated with alkaline phosphatase (ALP; r = 0.306, 0.276, 0.276 and 0.315; P = 0.016, 0.031, 0.031 and 0.013, respectively) and TBIL (r = 0.305, 0.360, 0.809 and 0.779; P = 0.017, 0.004, < 0.001 and < 0.001, respectively). We also found that all oxidative stress biomarkers have strong relationship with the severity, however, the IMA had the higher R value than AOPPs, AOPPs/ALB ratio, and IMA/ALB ratio (Table 2 ). To compare the predictive value of different oxidative stress biomarkers for severe DILI, then the areas under the receiver operating curve (AUROCs) were calculated in this study. The AUROCs of AOPPs, IMA, AOPPs/ALB ratio, IMA/ALB ratio for diagnosis of severe DILI were 0.839, 0.959, 0.821 and 0.954, respectively (Fig.  5 ). Combining the correlation analysis and AUROCs analysis results, that IMA outperformed, or was at least comparable with, any one of AOPPs, AOPPs/ALB ratio, IMA/ALB ratio, one of the most reliable markers to assess disease severity of DILI. Table 2 Correlations between oxidative stress biomarkers and other parameters in patients with drug-induced liver injury. Characteristics AOPPs AOPPs/albumin ratio IMA IMA/albumin ratio ALT 0.263 (0.146) 0.284 (0.139) 0.807 (0.032) 0.736 (0.044) AST 0.627 (0.064) 0.701 (0.05) 0.525 (0.083) 0.63 (0.063) ALP 0.016 (0.306) 0.031 (0.276) 0.031 (0.276) 0.013 (0.315) TBIL 0.017 (0.305) 0.004 (0.360) < 0.001 (0.809) < 0.001(0.779) TBA 0.374 (0.116) 0.429 (0.103) 0.01 (0.330) 0.02 (0.298) GGT 0.062 (0.241) 0.235 (0.154) 0.009 (0.334) 0.048 (0.254) Severity < 0.001 (0.489) < 0.001 (0.511) < 0.001 (0.726) < 0.001(0.695) Chronic DILI 0.736 (0.044) 0.491 (0.089) 0.886 (− 0.019) 0.856 (0.024) Hospitalization time 0.21 (0.12) 0.202 (0.116) 0.323 (0.01) 0.294 (0.02) AOPPs – – < 0.001 (0.509) < 0.001(0.481) AOPPs/Albumin ratio – – < 0.001 (0.569) < 0.001(0.582) Data are P value (r value). AOPPs advanced oxidation protein products, IMA ischemia-modified albumin, ALT alanine aminotransferase, AST aspartate aminotransferase, ALP alkaline phosphatase, TBIL total bilirubin, TBA total bile acid, GGT γ-glutamyl transpeptidase. Figure 5 The areas under the receiver operating curve for oxidative stress biomarkers to predict the severe DILI. We found that AOPPs had a positive correlation with IMA. Here, we conducted a multivariate logistic regression model with AOPPs and IMA to diagnosis the severe DILI. It came out that both AOPPs and IMA were both risk factors for severe DILI (Supplementary Material Table 3 ). Accordingly, we hypothesized that patient with higher AOPPs and higher IMA serum is more likely to suffer from severe DILI. While patient with lower AOPPs and lower IMA serum level is more likely to suffer from mild DILI. Could oxidative stress biomarkers predict the prognosis of DILI? In our study, 128 patients were followed up at least 6 months. Meanwhile, we try to analyze the correlation between baseline oxidative stress biomarkers (AOPPs and IMA levels or AOPPs/albumin or IMA/albumin ratio) and chronic DILI. Unfortunately, there were no significant correlation between oxidative stress biomarkers (AOPPs and IMA levels or AOPPs/albumin or IMA/albumin ratio) and chronic DILI (Table 2 ). Therefore, these oxidative stress biomarkers could not predict the chronic DILI. Though each person left hospital with a different degree of illness that we still try to analyze the correlation between baseline oxidative stress biomarkers and hospitalization time. We found that IMA and IMA/albumin ratio had a positive correlation with hospitalization time (r = 0.323 and 0.294; P = 0.01 and 0.02, respectively). While we did not find any significant correlation between AOPPs and AOPPs/albumin and hospitalization time (Table 2 ). Patient with higher serum IMA and IMA/albumin ratio might along with longer hospitalization time. However, above results could not demonstrate that the oxidative stress biomarkers are prognostic biomarkers of DILI. Discussion Herein we investigated the role of oxidative stress biomarkers (AOPPs, IMA, AOPPs/ALB ratio, IMA/ALB ratio) in patients with DILI. We found that in comparison with HCs, patients with DILI showed higher levels of circulating serum oxidative stress biomarkers. Patients in the severe group showed significantly higher AOPP and IMA serum levels as well as AOPP/ALB and IMA/ALB ratios. The levels of oxidative stress biomarkers showed an obvious decrease after treatment. According to the correlation analysis and AUROCs analysis results, that IMA outperformed to be one is the most reliable marker to assess disease severity of DILI. Majority of patients who experience DILI will fully recover clinically and biochemically. Although part of DILI was implicated with acute liver failure, the mortality was low 6 . In our study, the mortality rate for patients with DILI was 0.8% (1/128). Therefore, the mortality is not a reasonable indicator to assess the prognosis. Evidence showed that a significant number of patients who suffer from DILI will progress to chronic DILI, which has been defined by Drug Induced Liver Injury Network (DILIN) as continued injury 6 months after the initial diagnosis 21 . We conducted the correlation analysis between baseline oxidative stress biomarkers and chronic DILI, however, no significant results were found. We are very sorry to find that oxidative stress biomarkers might not predict the prognosis of DILI. Oxidative stress is central to the pathogenesis of many liver diseases 7 . There exists a balance between oxidants and antioxidants in the healthy liver. In mammals, a sophisticated antioxidant system is present to maintain redox homeostasis in the liver 22 . However, when the liver is exposed to exogenous and/or endogenous factors such as drugs, viruses or alcohol, the oxidant–antioxidant balance is disturbed by ‘oxidative stress’, resulting in the generation of AOPPs and IMA (Fig.  6 ). Figure 6 Generation of advanced oxidation protein products (AOPPs) and ischaemia-modified albumin (IMA) in drug-induced liver injury. Upon exposure to drugs, the liver experiences oxidative stress. A series of pathophysiological events occur, particularly oxidative stress, mitochondrial damage, endoplasmic reticulum stress and bile salt export pump inhibition. Finally, AOPPs and IMA are generated. The pathogenesis of DILI potentially involves three mechanisms that are responsible for the majority of cases with intrinsic and idiosyncratic DILI—mitochondrial dysfunction, oxidative stress and alterations in bile acid homeostasis 23 – 25 . Oxidative stress can be induced by ROS, which are produced during normal metabolism and involved in cell signalling and homeostasis. However, some DILI-causing agents are known to increase ROS accumulation through various mechanisms. Consequently, the elimination of excessive ROS can result in oxidative stress, which causes damage to key cellular constituents and even cell death 23 . The role of AOPPs is being investigated in an increasing number of animal experiments and clinical liver diseases 14 . Sun et al. reported that plasma AOPPs levels were higher in rats with acetaminophen-induced liver failure as compared with those in normal rats. They also revealed that plasma AOPPs levels were correlated with the severity of acetaminophen-induced liver injury 26 . Further, an increase in plasma or liver AOPPs was reported in an experimental liver injury model induced by the widely used hepatotoxic carbon tetrachloride and in the liver tissues from rats with liver damage induced by bile duct ligation. Several studies have reported the clinical relevance of AOPPs in liver diseases, such as chronic hepatitis C, alcohol-induced liver injury, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, non-alcoholic steatohepatitis, liver cirrhosis, acute-on-chronic liver failure and hepatocellular carcinoma 14 . However, very little information exists on the role of AOPPs in DILI, and only a few biomarkers are available to assess oxidative stress levels. AOPPs can be generated upon the exposure of serum ALB to hypochlorous acid in vitro; plasma AOPPs are mainly carried by ALB in vivo 27 . A study reported high plasma AOPPs/ALB ratio in cirrhotic patients with chronic hepatitis C 28 . In this study, patients with DILI had high AOPPs serum levels and AOPPs/ALB ratio—we thus propose that these can serve as oxidative stress biomarkers and can be used to assess DILI severity. AOPPs measurements reflect free radical generation and protein oxidation extent 9 . In vitro, AOPPs are known to upregulate transforming growth factor-β receptor I in hepatocytes and cause oxidative stress 29 . IMA is gaining popularity as a biomarker; it has been used to evaluate the overall level of ischaemic damage and oxidative stress 20 . Kumar et al. revealed that IMA can serve as an oxidative stress biomarker to assess disease severity and prognosis in patients with chronic liver disease 17 . Moreover, IMA levels have been found to be elevated along with other biomarkers of oxidative stress, such as total oxidant status levels and oxidative stress index 30 . Oxidative stress induces a site-specific modification at the N-terminus of the ALB molecule; such an alteration consequently affects the ability of the N-terminus of ALB to bind metals. This modified form of ALB is known as IMA 19 . This process indicates that IMA levels tend to increase with a decrease in ALB levels. In addition, a study found a negative correlation between IMA and ALB levels in patients with chronic liver disease 20 . In this study, even we found a strong negative correlation between ALB and IMA levels (P = 0.001). Thus, we believe that while there may be other unrecognized forms of ALB in patients with DILI, IMA generation specifically plays a significant role in decreasing ALB levels. The serum levels of AOPPs as well as those of IMA have been reported to be higher in patients with diabetes 20 . However, AOPPs and IMA serum levels in addition to AOPPs/ALB and IMA/ALB ratios showed no significant difference between DILI patients with diabetes and without diabetes. The mechanism underlying this phenomenon remains unclear. The absence of specific diagnostic biomarkers for DILI makes differential diagnoses strongly dependent on the judicious interpretation of serum liver biochemistry and other routine laboratory and imaging test results. ALT, ALP and TBIL serum levels remain the mainstay for detecting and classifying liver damage in suspected DILI 31 . Elevated ALT serum levels along with a concomitant increase in TBIL levels can potentially serve as a reliable biomarker of liver injury in DILI 32 . Oxidative stress induced by ROS is believed to be crucial in the pathogenesis of acute and chronic liver diseases, regardless of the aetiology 7 . We observed an evident distinction in the levels of oxidative stress biomarkers between the severe and non-severe groups; further, the serum levels of these biomarkers correlated with liver biochemistry (ALP, TBIL, GGT, TBA and ALB). Thus, our data suggest that these oxidative stress biomarkers can be used to gain insights into DILI severity and outcomes. In addition, they may improve the speed and/or accuracy of diagnosing DILI. The biggest limitation in our study is the small sample size, which potentially resulted in weaker associations among some of the parameters. More extensive confirmatory studies should be performed to better estimate the association between AOPPs, IMA and patients with DILI. In conclusion, we report that patients with DILI have high oxidative stress levels and that effective treatment can tackle this condition. We propose that AOPPs and IMA serum levels in addition to AOPPs/ALB and IMA/ALB ratios are suitable to assess and monitor oxidative stress levels in patients with DILI and to determine disease severity. More importantly, these oxidative stress biomarkers accompanied by serum liver biochemistry can indicate the development of DILI. However, further large-scale studies need to be conducted to validate our findings. Methods Patients This single-centred study was conducted between January 2018 and October 2019 at the First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine. Hospitalized patients diagnosed with idiosyncratic DILI were enrolled. Relevant clinical, biochemical, serological and histological data were collected, and, if not already performed, correlation tests were carried out for identifying suspected DILI, including hepatitis A, B, C and E, CMV, EBV, HSV and autoimmune hepatitis. All patients received integrative treatment after discharge. First, patients were required to promptly discontinue suspected liver injury drugs and try to avoid the use of suspected or similar drugs. A low-salt and low-fat diet was highly recommended; N-Acetyl-L-cysteine, reducing glutathione, ademetionine, compound glycyrrhizin tablets or ursodeoxycholic acid were used for improving liver function. Liver transplantation was considered for DILI patients with severe hepatic encephalopathy and coagulation disorders, or decompensated liver cirrhosis 33 . All patients were followed up at least 6 months (by telephone and outpatient record enquiry). Blood samples were obtained both on the day of admission and at discharge, and subsequently centrifuged at 4 °C and 3500 rpm for 10 min; the obtained serum samples were stored at − 80 °C. This study was conducted in compliance with the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of the First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine. All patients who participated in the study provided signed informed consent. Inclusion and exclusion criteria According to the DILIN study 34 , patients with a medication history and hepatic biochemical abnormality who met one or more of the following criteria were included: (1) jaundice (serum TBIL ≥ 2.5 mg/dL) or coagulopathy [international normalised ratio (INR) > 1.5] with elevated ALT or aspartate aminotransferase (AST) or ALP levels and (2) in the absence of jaundice or coagulopathy, elevated ALT or AST levels > 5 times the upper limit of normal (ULN) or ALP levels > 2 times the ULN. The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) age < 18 years or > 80 years, (2) liver injury caused by hepatitis viruses, autoimmune liver diseases, metabolic liver diseases or liver cancer, (3) human immunodeficiency virus infection, (4) liver or bone marrow transplantation prior to enrolment and (5) presence of a severe comorbidity that could affect treatment. Severity assessment The degree of severity was defined according to the DILIN study 34 as follows: mild (1 +), elevated serum enzyme (ALT and/or ALP) levels in the absence of jaundice (TBIL < 2.5 mg/dL); moderate (2 +), elevated serum enzyme levels along with jaundice (TBIL ≥ 2.5 mg/dL) or coagulopathy (INR > 1.5) but without the need for hospitalization; moderately severe (3 +), elevated serum enzyme levels along with jaundice or coagulopathy and with the need for hospitalization; severe (4 +), jaundice and signs of hepatic or other organ failure (i.e. renal or pulmonary) and fatal (5 +), death or liver transplantation from a DILI event. Clinical patterns of liver injury and causality assessment The pattern of liver injury was assessed based on the R value [(ALT value/ALT UNL) / (ALP value/ALP UNL)]. By convention, hepatocellular DILI is defined as R ≥ 5, cholestatic DILI as R ≤ 2, and mixed DILI as R > 2 and < 5 35 . The R ratio applied to each case was calculated based upon the values at admission. The Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method was used to evaluate causality of relationships identified, if any. Causality was assessed as either highly probable (> 8), probable (6–8), possible (3–5), unlikely (1 or 2) or excluded (0) 35 , 36 . Measurement of serum AOPPs and IMA AOPP determination was based on a spectrophotometry-based method reported by Witko-Sarsat et al . 9 . We measured AOPP serum levels using an OxiSelect AOPP Assay Kit (Cell Biolabs, CA, USA). IMA was measured using a colorimetric assay, as previously reported by Bar-Or et al. 37 Briefly, 100 μL serum was added to 25 μL of 0.1% (w/v) cobalt chloridine water solution (Sigma, CoCl 2  × 6H 2 O), gently mixed, and incubated for 10 min to allow sufficient cobalt–ALB binding. Subsequently, 25 μL dithiothreitol (DTT) (Sigma, 1.5 mg/mL H 2 O) was added as the colorizing agent, followed by incubation for 2 min. Finally, 150 μL of 0.9% NaCl was added to stop the reaction. Absorbance was measured at 492 nm using a spectrophotometer (Epoch 2 Microplate Spectrophotometer); colour development of the sample with DTT was compared to that of a sample without DTT (values reported as ABSU). Statistical analysis Descriptive statistics are expressed as means with standard deviation or number with percentage. Categorical data were compared using the chi-square or Fisher’s exact test. Continuous variables were compared using the Wilcoxon/Kruskal–Wallis test. The correlation analysis was performed to identify relationship between oxidative stress biomarkers and clinical parameters. To compare the predictive value of different oxidative stress biomarkers, AUROCs were calculated. Statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS v24.0 for Windows (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). P < 0.05 indicated statistical significance. Supplementary information

Supplementary Information. Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge all the patients and healthy people who participated in this study and all staff members and nursing teams in the hospitals. This work was supported by the grant from the Science & Technology Key Program of Zhejiang China (#2017C03051). Author contributions The author’s responsibilities were as follows—L.L.J. and X.X.W. designed the study. X.L.L., Z.F., Z.Y.L., and Z.L.J. collected the blood samples. X.Z.Y. and H.K.Z. collected the clinical data and analyzed it. X.L.L. and O.Y.X.X. performed the experiments (detection of AOPPs and IMA) and analyzed the data. X.L.L. wrote the first draft of the report and other authors critically revised the draft. All authors contributed to the final report and approved its submission for publication. Data availability Datasets and original images are available from the corresponding author on request. Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests. Footnotes Publisher's note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. These authors contributed equally: Lan-Lan Xiao and Fen Zhang. Contributor Information Xiao-Wei Xu, Email: xxw69@zju.edu.cn. Lan-Juan Li, Email: ljli@zju.edu.cn. Supplementary information is available for this paper at 10.1038/s41598-020-75141-2. References 1. Chalasani NP, et al. ACG clinical guideline: the diagnosis and management of idiosyncratic drug-induced liver injury. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2014;109:950–966. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2014.131. 2. Björnsson ES, Bergmann OM, Björnsson HK, Kvaran RB, Olafsson S. Incidence, presentation, and outcomes in patients with drug-induced liver injury in the general population of Iceland. Gastroenterology. 2013;144(1419–1425):e1413. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2013.02.006. 3. Larrey D. Epidemiology and individual susceptibility to adverse drug reactions affecting the liver. Semin. Liver Dis. 2002;22:145–155. doi: 10.1055/s-2002-30105. 4. Li L, Jiang W, Wang J. Clinical analysis of 275 cases of acute drug-induced liver disease. Front. Med. 2007;1:58–61. doi: 10.1007/s11684-007-0012-8. 5. Fontana RJ, et al. Drug-induced liver injury network (DILIN) prospective study. Drug Saf. 2009;32:55–68. doi: 10.2165/00002018-200932010-00005. 6. Liver E. EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines: drug-induced liver injury. J. Hepatol. 2019;70:1222–1261. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2019.02.014. 7. Li S, Hong M, Tan H-Y, Wang N, Feng Y. Insights into the role and interdependence of oxidative stress and inflammation in liver diseases. Oxid. Med. Cell. Long. 2016;2016:4234061. doi: 10.1155/2016/4234061. 8. Borrelli A, et al. Role of gut microbiota and oxidative stress in the progression of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease to hepatocarcinoma: current and innovative therapeutic approaches. Redox Biol. 2018;15:467–479. doi: 10.1016/j.redox.2018.01.009. 9. Witko-Sarsat V, et al. Advanced oxidation protein products as a novel marker of oxidative stress in uremia. Kidney Int. 1996;49:1304–1313. doi: 10.1038/ki.1996.186. 10. Anderstam B, et al. Modification of the oxidative stress biomarker AOPP assay: application in uremic samples. Clin. Chim. Acta. 2008;393:114–118. doi: 10.1016/j.cca.2008.03.029. 11. Witko-Sarsat V, et al. AOPP-induced activation of human neutrophil and monocyte oxidative metabolism: a potential target for N-acetylcysteine treatment in dialysis patients. Kidney Int. 2003;64:82–91. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1755.2003.00044.x. 12. Torbitz VD, et al. In vitro oxidation of fibrinogen promotes functional alterations and formation of advanced oxidation protein products, an inflammation mediator. Inflammation. 2014;38:1201–1206. doi: 10.1007/s10753-014-0085-x. 13. Ding R, et al. Advanced oxidation protein products sensitized the transient receptor potential vanilloid 1 via NADPH oxidase 1 and 4 to cause mechanical hyperalgesia. Redox Biol. 2016;10:1–11. doi: 10.1016/j.redox.2016.09.004. 14. Zhao Y, et al. Advanced oxidation protein products play critical roles in liver diseases. Eur. J. Clin. Investig. 2019 doi: 10.1111/eci.13098. 15. Mastella AK, et al. Evaluation of ischemia-modified albumin in myocardial infarction and prostatic diseases. Biomed. Pharmacother. 2009;63:762–766. doi: 10.1016/j.biopha.2008.12.002. 16. Valle Gottlieb MG. Associations among metabolic syndrome, ischemia, inflammatory, oxidatives, and lipids biomarkers. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 2010;95:586–591. doi: 10.1210/jc.2009-1592. 17. Chen C-Y, Tsai W-L, Lin P-J, Shiesh S-C. The value of serum ischemia-modified albumin for assessing liver function in patients with chronic liver disease. Clin. Chem. Lab. Med. 2011;49:1817–1821. doi: 10.1515/cclm.2011.675. 18. Piwowar A, Knapik-Kordecka M, Warwas M. Ischemia-modified albumin level in type 2 diabetes mellitus—preliminary report. Dis. Markers. 2008;24:311–317. doi: 10.1155/2008/784313. 19. Christenson RH, et al. Characteristics of an albumin cobalt binding test for assessment of acute coronary syndrome patients: a multicenter study. Clin. Chem. 2001;47:464–470. doi: 10.1093/clinchem/47.3.464. 20. Kumar PA. The role of ischemia modified albumin as a biomarker in patients. J. Clin. Diagn. Res. 2016;10:09–12. doi: 10.7860/jcdr/2016/17168.7399. 21. Stine JG, Chalasani N. Chronic liver injury induced by drugs: a systematic review. Liver Int. 2015;35:2343–2353. doi: 10.1111/liv.12958. 22. Li AN, et al. Resources and biological activities of natural polyphenols. Nutrients. 2014;6:6020–6047. doi: 10.3390/nu6126020. 23. Gómez-Lechón MJ, Tolosa L, Donato MT. Metabolic activation and drug-induced liver injury:in vitroapproaches for the safety risk assessment of new drugs. J. Appl. Toxicol. 2016;36:752–768. doi: 10.1002/jat.3277. 24. Will Y, Dykens J. Mitochondrial toxicity assessment in industry: a decade of technology development and insight. Expert Opin. Drug Metab. Toxicol. 2014;10:1061–1067. doi: 10.1517/17425255.2014.939628. 25. Aleo MD, et al. Human drug-induced liver injury severity is highly associated with dual inhibition of liver mitochondrial function and bile salt export pump. Hepatology. 2014;60:1015–1022. doi: 10.1002/hep.27206. 26. Sun J, Sugiyama A, Masuda A, Ochi T, Takeuchi T. Expressions of protein oxidation markers, dityrosine and advanced oxidation protein products in acetaminophen-induced liver injury in rats. J. Vet. Med. Sci. 2011;73:1185–1190. doi: 10.1292/jvms.11-0088. 27. Pasterk L, et al. Oxidized plasma albumin promotes platelet-endothelial crosstalk and endothelial tissue factor expression. Sci. Rep. 2016 doi: 10.1038/srep22104. 28. Zuwala-Jagiello J, Murawska-Cialowicz E, Pazgan-Simon M. Increased circulating advanced oxidation protein products and high-sensitive troponin T in cirrhotic patients with chronic hepatitis C: a preliminary report. Biomed. Res. Int. 2015;2015:786570. doi: 10.1155/2015/786570. 29. Sun S, et al. Advanced oxidation protein products induce hepatocyte epithelial-mesenchymal transition via a ROS-dependent TGF-beta/Smad signaling pathway. Cell Biol. Int. 2017;41:842–853. doi: 10.1002/cbin.10792. 30. Ellidag HY, Eren E, Yılmaz N, Cekin Y. Oxidative stress and ischemia-modified albumin in chronic ischemic heart failure. Redox Rep. 2014;19:118–123. doi: 10.1179/1351000213y.0000000083. 31. Ortega-Alonso A, Stephens C, Lucena MI, Andrade RJ. Case characterization, clinical features and risk factors in drug-induced liver injury. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2016;17:7141. doi: 10.3390/ijms1705071. 32. Senior JR. Alanine aminotransferase: a clinical and regulatory tool for detecting liver injury-past, present, and future. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 2012;92:332–339. doi: 10.1038/clpt.2012.108. 33. Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of drug-induced liver injury. Chin. Med. Assoc. 12–14 (2015). 34. Chalasani N, et al. Causes, clinical features, and outcomes from a prospective study of drug-induced liver injury in the United States. Gastroenterology. 2008;135(1924–1934):e1924. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2008.09.011. 35. Benichou C, Danan G, Flahault A. Causality assessment of adverse reactions to drugs—II. An original model for validation of drug causality assessment methods: case reports with positive rechallenge. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 1993;46:1331–1336. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(93)90102-7. 36. Benichou C. Criteria of drug-induced liver disorders. J. Hepatol. 1990;11:272–276. doi: 10.1016/0168-8278(90)90124-a. 37. Bar-Or D, Lau E, Winkler JV. A novel assay for cobalt-albumin binding and its potential as a marker for myocardial ischemia—a preliminary report. J. Emerg. Med. 2000;19:311–315. doi: 10.1016/s0736-4679(00)00255-9. Associated Data Supplementary Materials Supplementary Information. Data Availability Statement Datasets and original images are available from the corresponding author on request.

📖 中文全文 Chinese Full Text

中文

# 翻译

使用高级氧化蛋白产物和缺血修饰白蛋白监测药物性肝损伤患者氧化应激水平

**作者:** 肖兰兰¹#,张芬¹#,赵亚磊¹,张凌剑¹,谢忠阳¹,黄凯洲²,欧阳晓曦¹,吴晓新¹,徐晓伟¹✉,李兰娟¹✉

¹ 浙江大学医学院附属第一医院,传染病诊治国家重点实验室,国家传染病临床医学研究中心,传染病诊治协同创新中心,浙江杭州 ² 汕头市中心医院,汕头大学医学院附属汕头医院,广东

✉ 通讯作者。# 共同第一作者。

---

## 摘要

氧化应激水平升高在特异质性药物性肝损伤(DILI)发病机制中起关键作用。本研究旨在探讨高级氧化蛋白产物(AOPPs)和缺血修饰白蛋白(IMA)能否用于监测DILI患者的氧化应激水平并评估疾病严重程度。我们采用分光光度法检测了68例严重程度0-2级(非重度组)、60例严重程度3-5级(重度组)DILI患者及38名健康对照者的AOPPs和IMA水平。结果显示,DILI患者基线AOPPs和IMA血清水平及AOPPs/白蛋白和IMA/白蛋白比值均显著高于健康对照者。此外,与非重度组相比,重度组基线AOPPs和IMA血清水平及AOPPs/白蛋白和IMA/白蛋白比值更高。治疗后两组患者的AOPPs和IMA血清水平及AOPPs/白蛋白和IMA/白蛋白比值均有所下降。结合相关分析和受试者工作特征曲线下面积(AUROC)分析结果,IMA是评估DILI疾病严重程度最可靠的标志物。我们的研究结果表明,AOPPs和IMA可作为监测DILI患者氧化应激水平的关键生物标志物,并可提示疾病严重程度。IMA是评估DILI疾病严重程度最可靠的氧化应激生物标志物之一。

**主题词:** 生物标志物,疾病,胃肠病学

---

## 引言

特异质性药物性肝损伤(DILI)是一种罕见的临床疾病,可导致黄疸、肝功能衰竭甚至死亡¹。在发达国家,其年发病率大约在1/100,000至20/100,000之间²,³。在中国,急性DILI约占急性肝衰竭(ALF)相关住院病例的20%⁴;然而,DILI在一般人群中的可靠发病率仍不清楚。发生肝细胞型DILI伴黄疸的患者死亡率至少为10%,而最终发展为ALF的DILI患者自发恢复的概率仅为25%⁵。鉴于临床表现的多样性和临床实践中使用药物的种类繁多,加之缺乏特异性生物标志物,DILI的诊断仍然是一个特别困难的过程;事实上,DILI仍然是肝病学家面临的最具挑战性的肝脏疾病之一⁶。

DILI的发病机制尚不明确。特异质性DILI的可能发病机制涉及反应性代谢物或药物-蛋白质复合物的无意生成,其可直接或间接介导细胞内蛋白质和/或细胞器的损伤,从而诱导"危险"信号(氧化应激、线粒体损伤、内质网应激和胆盐输出泵抑制)⁶。据报道,氧化应激在DILI中起关键作用,已知其可影响细胞膜、蛋白质和DNA,并可导致凋亡和细胞死亡,最终引起肝功能损害。肝脏易受氧化应激的影响,持续的氧化应激被认为在肝脏疾病的启动和进展中发挥关键作用⁷,⁸。

Witko-Sarsat等人于1996年提出测量高级氧化蛋白产物(AOPPs),以可靠估计尿毒症患者氧化剂介导的蛋白质损伤程度⁹。此后,AOPPs被用作氧化应激生物标志物⁹,¹⁰和炎症介质¹¹,¹²。它们在多种疾病及其并发症的病理过程中发挥着关键作用,尤其是在慢性肾脏疾病中¹³。在过去十年中,人们对AOPPs在多种肝脏疾病中的作用取得了进展¹⁴;然而,关于AOPPs与急性肝损伤(特别是DILI)之间是否存在潜在联系的临床证据很少。

缺血修饰白蛋白(IMA)是一种已知的心肌梗死生物标志物¹⁵;然而,在非心脏缺血情况下,如肝硬化和代谢综合征,IMA水平也可能升高¹⁶,¹⁷。糖尿病患者血浆中的白蛋白(ALB)分子在慢性缺氧条件下被修饰,主要由高血糖和氧化应激引起¹⁸。多项研究表明,活性氧(ROS)可生成高活性羟基自由基,引起ALB分子N端的构象改变,最终导致IMA产生¹⁹。IMA是一种新型氧化应激生物标志物,已被证明在慢性肝脏疾病中升高²⁰。尽管如此,迄今为止,IMA与DILI发展之间的关系仍不清楚。

在本研究中,我们关注AOPPs和IMA血清水平,并测定了DILI患者治疗期间AOPPs/ALB和IMA/ALB比值。此外,我们探讨了氧化应激生物标志物与DILI严重程度和预后之间的关系。

---

## 结果

### 入组受试者的特征

2018年1月至2019年10月期间,共筛查了167名住院患者。最终入组了128例"高度可能"或"可能"因果关系的DILI患者及38名健康对照者(HCs)。128例DILI患者中,68例纳入非重度组,60例纳入重度组。几乎所有患者治疗后均康复;重度组中1例患者在90天内死亡。25例(19.5%)患者发展为慢性DILI,其中非重度组14例(20.6%),重度组11例(18.3%)。最常见的肝损伤类型为肝细胞型(非重度组102例[79.7%],重度组48例[80.0%])。与非重度组患者相比,重度组患者临床上更易出现黄疸(P < 0.001),糖尿病发生率较低,且丙氨酸氨基转移酶(ALT)和总胆红素(TBIL)水平往往更高(P = 0.022和P < 0.001)。草药或膳食补充剂是最常见的致病因素,占98例(76.6%);其他致病因素包括抗菌药物[7例(5.5%)]和心血管药物[4例(3.1%)]。所有参与者的特征列于表1。

**表1 受试者的人口学、临床和实验室参数**

| 参数 | 所有患者(n=128) | 非重度组(n=68) | 重度组(n=60) | 健康对照(n=38) | P值 | |------|---------|---------|---------|---------|------| | 年龄(岁,均数[SD]) | 50.61 (14.8) | 50.2 (15.6) | 51.1 (14.1) | 44.0 (13.2) | 0.792 | | 女性(%) | 89 (69.5) | 49 (72.1) | 40 (66.7) | 21 (55.3) | 0.508 | | 饮酒 | 20 (15.6) | 8 (11.8) | 12 (20.0) | – | 0.200 | | 既往肝脏疾病 | 28 (21.9) | 16 (23.5) | 12 (20.0) | – | 0.630 | | 高血压 | 22 (17.2) | 12 (17.6) | 10 (16.7) | – | 0.883 | | 糖尿病 | 20 (15.6) | 16 (23.5) | 4 (6.7) | – | 0.009 | | 黄疸 | 52 (40.6) | 12 (17.6) | 40 (66.7) | – | < 0.001 | | 致病药物-HDS | 98 (76.6) | 46 (67.6) | 52 (86.7) | – | 0.011 | | 潜伏期 | | | | | 0.258 | | < 5天 | 9 (7.0) | 5 (7.4) | 4 (6.7) | – | | | 5–90天 | 111 (86.7) | 61 (89.7) | 50 (83.3) | – | | | > 90天 | 8 (6.3) | 2 (2.9) | 6 (10.0) | – | | | RUCAM | | | | | 0.649 | | 高度可能(> 8) | 74 | 39 | 35 | – | | | 可能(6–8) | 46 | 21 | 25 | – | | | 肝损伤类型(%) | | | | | 0.453 | | 肝细胞型 | 102 (79.7) | 54 (79.4) | 48 (80.0) | – | | | 胆汁淤积型 | 8 (6.3) | 4 (5.9) | 4 (6.7) | – | | | 混合型 | 18 (14.1) | 10 (14.7) | 8 (13.3) | – | | | 90天内死亡 | 1 (0.8) | 0 | 1 (3.9) | – | 0.285 | | 慢性DILI | 25 (19.5) | 14 (20.6) | 11 (18.3) | – | 0.748 | | **入院时肝脏生化指标** | | | | | | | ALT(U/L) | 665.02 (486.1) | 535.12 (342.9) | 812.2 (580.8) | 20.6 (9.9) | 0.022 | | AST(U/L) | 382.9 (311.1) | 272.6 (169.8) | 507.9 (383.4) | 19.7 (5.6) | 0.004 | | ALP(U/L) | 169.9 (82.6) | 158.4 (75.2) | 183.3 (90.7) | 68.9 (15.7) | 0.235 | | TBIL(mg/dL) | 5.8 (5.9) | 1.8 (1.3) | 10.4 (5.7) | 0.7 (0.3) | < 0.001 | | GGT(U/L) | 206.7 (183.2) | 186.5 (166.3) | 228.2 (200.2) | 25.1 (15.7) | 0.379 | | ALB(g/L) | 38.9 (4.2) | 39.9 (3.7) | 37.7 (4.4) | 46.5 (3.4) | 0.036 | | INR | 1.0 (0.2) | 1.0 (0.1) | 1.0 (0.2) | – | 0.079 | | AOPPs(μmol/L) | 176.8 (92.6) | 124.8 (61.8) | 235.7 (86.5) | 40.1 (14.2) | < 0.001 | | AOPPs/白蛋白(μmol/g) | 5.1 (3.1) | 3.1 (1.2) | 7.4 (2.9) | 0.8 (0.3) | < 0.001 | | IMA(ABSU) | 1.3 (0.8) | 0.7 (0.3) | 1.8 (0.7) | 0.3 (0.1) | < 0.001 | | IMA/白蛋白(ABSU·dL/g) | 0.3 (0.2) | 0.2 (0.1) | 0.5 (0.2) | 0.07 (0.02) | < 0.001 | | **出院时肝脏生化指标** | | | | | | | ALT(U/L) | 205.4 (161.1) | 193.4 (123.8) | 219.8 (198.4) | – | 0.518 | | AST(U/L) | 96.6 (71.4) | 85.3 (63.7) | 109.5 (78.2) | – | 0.184 | | ALP(U/L) | 139.0 (62.1) | 145.5 (74.3) | 131.2 (43.0) | – | 0.364 | | TBIL(mg/dL) | 3.1 (3.2) | 1.4 (1.4) | 5.1 (3.7) | – | < 0.001 | | GGT(U/L) | 172.4 (185.8) | 155.1 (147.1) | 193.3 (224.8) | – | 0.418 | | ALB(g/L) | 37.09 (4.0) | 38.0 (3.7) | 36.0 (4.2) | – | 0.518 | | INR | 1.0 (0.1) | 0.9 (0.1) | 1.0 (0.2) | – | 0.014 | | AOPPs(μmol/L) | 96.6 (52.2) | 77.8 (30.3) | 118.0 (62.8) | – | < 0.001 | | AOPPs/白蛋白(μmol/g) | 2.7 (2.0) | 1.9 (0.6) | 3.5 (2.5) | – | < 0.001 | | IMA(ABSU) | 0.8 (0.5) | 0.6 (0.2) | 1.1 (0.5) | – | < 0.001 | | IMA/白蛋白(ABSU·dL/g) | 0.2 (0.1) | 0.1 (0.06) | 0.3 (0.1) | – | < 0.001 |

数据以均数±SD或例数(百分比)表示。P值为非重度组与重度组之间的比较。DILI:药物性肝损伤;SD:标准差;HDS:草药或膳食补充剂;RUCAM:Roussel Uclaf因果关系评估法;ALT:丙氨酸氨基转移酶;AST:天冬氨酸氨基转移酶;ALP:碱性磷酸酶;TBIL:总胆红素;GGT:γ-谷氨酰转肽酶;ALB:白蛋白;INR:国际标准化比值;AOPPs:高级氧化蛋白产物;IMA:缺血修饰白蛋白。

### AOPPs血清水平和AOPPs/ALB比值

入院时,DILI患者的AOPPs血清水平(176.8 ± 92.6 μmol/L)和AOPPs/ALB比值(5.1 ± 3.1 μmol/g)显著高于健康对照者(分别为40.1 ± 14.2 μmol/L和0.8 ± 0.3 μmol/g,P < 0.001;表1)。与非重度组相比,重度组基线AOPPs血清水平和AOPPs/ALB比值显著更高(分别为124.8 ± 61.8 μmol/L vs. 235.7 ± 86.5 μmol/L和3.1 ± 1.2 μmol/g vs. 7.4 ± 2.9 μmol/g,P < 0.001;图1A、3A)。治疗后,非重度组和重度组的AOPPs血清水平和AOPPs/ALB比值(出院时)均显著下降(分别P < 0.001;图2A、B,4A)。

**图1** 药物性肝损伤患者和健康对照者(HCs)基线高级氧化蛋白产物(AOPPs)和缺血修饰白蛋白(IMA)血清水平。(A)AOPPs水平。(B)IMA水平。***P < 0.001。ABSU:吸光度单位。

**图3** 药物性肝损伤患者和健康对照者(HCs)基线高级氧化蛋白产物(AOPPs)/白蛋白和缺血修饰白蛋白(IMA)/白蛋白比值。(A)AOPPs/白蛋白比值。(B)IMA/白蛋白比值。***P < 0.001。ABSU:吸光度单位。

**图2** 药物性肝损伤患者治疗前后高级氧化蛋白产物(AOPPs)和缺血修饰白蛋白(IMA)血清水平。(A)非重度组AOPPs水平。(B)重度组AOPPs水平。(C)非重度组IMA水平。(D)重度组IMA水平。***P < 0.001。ABSU:吸光度单位。

**图4** 药物性肝损伤患者治疗前后高级氧化蛋白产物(AOPPs)/白蛋白和缺血修饰白蛋白(IMA)/白蛋白比值。(A)非重度组与重度组治疗前后AOPPs/白蛋白比值。(B)非重度组与重度组治疗前后IMA/白蛋白比值。***P < 0.001。ABSU:吸光度单位。

### IMA血清水平和IMA/ALB比值

入院时,DILI患者的IMA血清水平[1.3 ± 0.8吸光度单位(ABSU)]和IMA/ALB比值(0.3 ± 0.2 ABSU·dL/g)显著高于健康对照者(分别为0.3 ± 0.1 ABSU和0.07 ± 0.02 ABSU·dL/g,P < 0.001;表1)。此外,非重度组患者的IMA血清水平和IMA/ALB比值低于重度组(分别为0.7 ± 0.3 ABSU vs. 1.8 ± 0.7 ABSU和0.2 ± 0.1 ABSU·dL/g vs. 0.5 ± 0.2 ABSU·dL/g,P < 0.001;图1B、3B)。治疗后,非重度组和重度组的IMA血清水平和IMA/ALB比值均下降(分别P < 0.001;图2C、D,4B)。

### 氧化应激生物标志物在评估DILI患者严重程度中的表现

利用128例DILI患者的基线数据,我们分析了氧化应激生物标志物与临床参数之间的相关性(表2)。有趣的是,AOPPs、AOPPs/ALB比值、IMA、IMA/ALB比值均与碱性磷酸酶(ALP)呈正相关(r = 0.306、0.276、0.276和0.315;P = 0.016、0.031、0.031和0.013),与TBIL也呈正相关(r = 0.305、0.360、0.809和0.779;P = 0.017、0.004、< 0.001和< 0.001)。我们还发现所有氧化应激生物标志物与严重程度均有较强的相关性,但IMA的R值高于AOPPs、AOPPs/ALB比值和IMA/ALB比值(表2)。

为了比较不同氧化应激生物标志物对重度DILI的预测价值,本研究计算了受试者工作特征曲线下面积(AUROCs)。AOPPs、IMA、AOPPs/ALB比值、IMA/ALB比值诊断重度DILI的AUROC分别为0.839、0.959、0.821和0.954(图5)。结合相关分析和AUROC分析结果,IMA表现优于或至少与AOPPs、AOPPs/ALB比值、IMA/ALB比值中的任何一个相当,是评估DILI疾病严重程度最可靠的标志物之一。

**表2 药物性肝损伤患者氧化应激生物标志物与其他参数之间的相关性**

| 特征 | AOPPs | AOPPs/白蛋白比值 | IMA | IMA/白蛋白比值 | |------|-------|---------|-----|---------| | ALT | 0.263 (0.146) | 0.284 (0.139) | 0.807 (0.032) | 0.736 (0.044) | | AST | 0.627 (0.064) | 0.701 (0.05) | 0.525 (0.083) | 0.63 (0.063) | | ALP | 0.016 (0.306) | 0.031 (0.276) | 0.031 (0.276) | 0.013 (0.315) | | TBIL | 0.017 (0.305) | 0.004 (0.360) | < 0.001 (0.809) | < 0.001 (0.779) | | TBA | 0.374 (0.116) | 0.429 (0.103) | 0.01 (0.330) | 0.02 (0.298) | | GGT | 0.062 (0.241) | 0.235 (0.154) | 0.009 (0.334) | 0.048 (0.254) | | 严重程度 | < 0.001 (0.489) | < 0.001 (0.511) | < 0.001 (0.726) | < 0.001 (0.695) | | 慢性DILI | 0.736 (0.044) | 0.491 (0.089) | 0.886 (−0.019) | 0.856 (0.024) | | 住院时间 | 0.21 (0.12) | 0.202 (0.116) | 0.323 (0.01) | 0.294 (0.02) | | AOPPs | – | – | < 0.001 (0.509) | < 0.001 (0.481) | | AOPPs/白蛋白比值 | – | – | < 0.001 (0.569) | < 0.001 (0.582) |

数据为P值(r值)。AOPPs:高级氧化蛋白产物;IMA:缺血修饰白蛋白;ALT:丙氨酸氨基转移酶;AST:天冬氨酸氨基转移酶;ALP:碱性磷酸酶;TBIL:总胆红素;TBA:总胆汁酸;GGT:γ-谷氨酰转肽酶。

**图5** 氧化应激生物标志物预测重度DILI的受试者工作特征曲线下面积。

我们发现AOPPs与IMA呈正相关。在此,我们建立了包含AOPPs和IMA的多因素logistic回归模型来诊断重度DILI。结果显示AOPPs和IMA均为重度DILI的危险因素(补充材料表3)。因此,我们推测AOPPs和IMA血清水平较高的患者更可能发生重度DILI,而AOPPs和IMA血清水平较低的患者更可能发生轻度DILI。

### 氧化应激生物标志物能否预测DILI的预后?

在我们的研究中,128例患者随访了至少6个月。同时,我们尝试分析基线氧化应激生物标志物(AOPPs和IMA水平或AOPPs/白蛋白或IMA/白蛋白比值)与慢性DILI之间的相关性。遗憾的是,氧化应激生物标志物(AOPPs和IMA水平或AOPPs/白蛋白或IMA/白蛋白比值)与慢性DILI之间无显著相关性(表2)。因此,这些氧化应激生物标志物不能预测慢性DILI。

尽管每位患者出院时疾病程度不同,我们仍尝试分析基线氧化应激生物标志物与住院时间之间的相关性。我们发现IMA和IMA/白蛋白比值与住院时间呈正相关(r = 0.323和0.294;P = 0.01和0.02)。然而,AOPPs和AOPPs/白蛋白与住院时间之间未发现显著相关性(表2)。IMA和IMA/白蛋白比值血清水平较高的患者可能住院时间更长。但上述结果不能证明氧化应激生物标志物是DILI的预后生物标志物。

---

## 讨论

本研究探讨了氧化应激生物标志物(AOPPs、IMA、AOPPs/ALB比值、IMA/ALB比值)在DILI患者中的作用。我们发现,与健康对照者相比,DILI患者循环血清氧化应激生物标志物水平更高。重度组患者的AOPPs和IMA血清水平以及AOPPs/ALB和IMA/ALB比值显著更高。治疗后氧化应激生物标志物水平明显下降。根据相关分析和AUROC分析结果,IMA是评估DILI疾病严重程度最可靠的标志物。

大多数DILI患者将在临床和生化方面完全康复。尽管部分DILI与急性肝衰竭相关,但死亡率较低⁶。在我们的研究中,DILI患者的死亡率为0.8%(1/128)。因此,死亡率不是评估预后的合理指标。有证据表明,相当数量的DILI患者将进展为慢性DILI,药物性肝损伤网络(DILIN)将其定义为初次诊断后6个月持续存在的损伤²¹。我们对基线氧化应激生物标志物与慢性DILI进行了相关分析,但未发现显著结果。我们遗憾地发现氧化应激生物标志物可能无法预测DILI的预后。

氧化应激是许多肝脏疾病发病机制的核心⁷。健康肝脏中氧化剂与抗氧化剂之间存在平衡。哺乳动物体内存在一套复杂的抗氧化系统,以维持肝脏的氧化还原稳态²²。然而,当肝脏暴露于药物、病毒或酒精等外源性和/或内源性因素时,氧化剂-抗氧化剂平衡被"氧化应激"破坏,导致AOPPs和IMA的生成(图6)。

**图6** 药物性肝损伤中高级氧化蛋白产物(AOPPs)和缺血修饰白蛋白(IMA)的生成。暴露于药物后,肝脏经历氧化应激。发生一系列病理生理事件,特别是氧化应激、线粒体损伤、内质网应激和胆盐输出泵抑制。最终生成AOPPs和IMA。

DILI的发病机制可能涉及三种机制,这些机制负责大多数内在性和特异质性DILI病例——线粒体功能障碍、氧化应激和胆汁酸稳态改变²³⁻²⁵。氧化应激可由ROS诱导,ROS在正常代谢过程中产生,参与细胞信号传导和稳态维持。然而,一些已知引起DILI的药物可通过多种机制增加ROS的积累。因此,过量ROS的清除可导致氧化应激,造成关键细胞成分损伤甚至细胞死亡²³。

AOPPs的作用正在越来越多的动物实验和临床肝脏疾病中被研究¹⁴。Sun等人报道,对乙酰氨基酚诱导的肝衰竭大鼠血浆AOPPs水平高于正常大鼠。他们还揭示血浆AOPPs水平与对乙酰氨基酚诱导的肝损伤严重程度相关²⁶。此外,在四氯化碳(一种广泛使用的肝毒性物质)诱导的实验性肝损伤模型中,以及在胆管结扎诱导的肝损伤大鼠的肝脏组织中,血浆或肝脏AOPPs均有所增加。多项研究报道了AOPPs在肝脏疾病中的临床相关性,如丙型肝炎、酒精性肝损伤、非酒精性脂肪性肝病、非酒精性脂肪性肝炎、肝硬化、慢加急性肝衰竭和肝细胞癌¹⁴。然而,关于AOPPs在DILI中作用的信息非常少,可用于评估氧化应激水平的生物标志物也很少。

AOPPs可在体外由血清ALB暴露于次氯酸生成;血浆AOPPs在体内主要由ALB携带²⁷。一项研究报道,慢性丙型肝炎肝硬化患者的血浆AOPPs/ALB比值较高²⁸。在本研究中,DILI患者的AOPPs血清水平和AOPPs/ALB比值较高——因此我们提出这些可作为氧化应激生物标志物,并可用于评估DILI严重程度。AOPPs的测量反映了自由基生成和蛋白质氧化程度⁹。在体外,AOPPs已知可上调肝细胞中转化生长因子-β受体I并引起氧化应激²⁹。

IMA作为一种生物标志物正受到越来越多的关注;它已被用于评估缺血性损伤和氧化应激的总体水平²⁰。Kumar等人揭示IMA可作为氧化应激生物标志物,用于评估慢性肝脏疾病患者的疾病严重程度和预后¹⁷。此外,发现IMA水平与其他氧化应激生物标志物(如总氧化剂状态水平和氧化应激指数)一起升高³⁰。氧化应激诱导ALB分子N端的特异性位点修饰;这种改变随后影响ALB N端结合金属的能力。这种修饰形式的ALB被称为IMA¹⁹。这一过程表明,IMA水平随ALB水平降低而升高。此外,一项研究发现慢性肝脏疾病患者IMA与ALB水平之间存在负相关²⁰。在本研究中,我们发现ALB与IMA水平之间存在强负相关(P = 0.001)。因此,我们认为尽管DILI患者中可能存在其他未被识别的ALB形式,但IMA的生成在降低ALB水平方面发挥了重要作用。

据报道,糖尿病患者的AOPPs和IMA血清水平更高²⁰。然而,AOPPs和IMA血清水平以及AOPPs/ALB和IMA/ALB比值在合并糖尿病和不合并糖尿病的DILI患者之间无显著差异。这一现象背后的机制尚不清楚。

DILI缺乏特异性诊断生物标志物,使得鉴别诊断在很大程度上依赖于对血清肝脏生化及其他常规实验室和影像学检查结果的审慎解读。ALT、ALP和TBIL血清水平仍然是疑似DILI中检测和分类肝脏损伤的主要依据³¹。ALT血清水平升高伴TBIL水平同时升高可能作为DILI中肝损伤的可靠生物标志物³²。

无论病因如何,ROS诱导的氧化应激被认为在急性和慢性肝脏疾病的发病机制中至关重要⁷。我们观察到重度组与非重度组之间氧化应激生物标志物水平存在明显差异;此外,这些生物标志物的血清水平与肝脏生化指标(ALP、TBIL、GGT、TBA和ALB)相关。因此,我们的数据表明,这些氧化应激生物标志物可用于深入了解DILI的严重程度和结局。此外,它们可能提高DILI诊断的速度和/或准确性。

我们研究最大的局限性是样本量较小,这可能导致某些参数之间的关联较弱。应进行更大规模的验证性研究,以更好地评估AOPPs、IMA与DILI患者之间的关联。

总之,我们报告DILI患者氧化应激水平较高,有效治疗可改善这一状况。我们提出AOPPs和IMA血清水平以及AOPPs/ALB和IMA/ALB比值适用于评估和监测DILI患者的氧化应激水平,并确定疾病严重程度。更重要的是,这些氧化应激生物标志物结合血清肝脏生化指标可提示DILI的发展。然而,需要进一步开展大规模研究来验证我们的发现。

---

## 方法

### 患者

这项单中心研究于2018年1月至2019年10月在浙江大学医学院附属第一医院进行。入组了诊断为特异质性DILI的住院患者。收集相关临床、生化、血清学和组织学数据,如尚未进行,则开展相关检查以识别疑似DILI,包括甲型、乙型、丙型和戊型肝炎、巨细胞病毒(CMV)、EB病毒(EBV)、单纯疱疹病毒(HSV)和自身免疫性肝炎。所有患者出院后接受综合治疗。首先,要求患者立即停用疑似肝损伤药物,并尽量避免使用疑似或类似药物。强烈建议低盐低脂饮食;使用N-乙酰-L-半胱氨酸、还原型谷胱甘肽、腺苷蛋氨酸、复方甘草酸苷片或熊去氧胆酸改善肝功能。对于伴有严重肝性脑病和凝血障碍或失代偿性肝硬化的DILI患者,考虑肝移植³³。所有患者随访至少6个月(通过电话和门诊记录查询)。在入院当天和出院时采集血样,随后在4°C、3500 rpm条件下离心10分钟;获得的血清样本保存于−80°C。本研究遵循《赫尔辛基宣言》的伦理原则,经浙江大学医学院附属第一医院伦理委员会批准。所有参与研究的患者均签署知情同意书。

### 纳入和排除标准

根据DILIN研究³⁴,有用药史和肝脏生化异常的患者,符合以下一项或多项标准者被纳入:(1)黄疸(血清TBIL ≥ 2.5 mg/dL)或凝血功能障碍[国际标准化比值(INR)> 1.5]伴ALT或天冬氨酸氨基转移酶(AST)或ALP水平升高;(2)在无黄疸或凝血功能障碍的情况下,ALT或AST水平 > 正常值上限(ULN)的5倍,或ALP水平 > ULN的2倍。排除标准如下:(1)年龄 < 18岁或 > 80岁;(2)由肝炎病毒、自身免疫性肝脏疾病、代谢性肝脏疾病或肝癌引起的肝损伤;(3)人类免疫缺陷病毒感染;(4)入组前接受过肝脏或骨髓移植;(5)存在可能治疗的严重合并症。

### 严重程度评估

根据DILIN研究³⁴,严重程度定义如下:轻度(1+),血清酶(ALT和/或ALP)水平升高,无黄疸(TBIL < 2.5 mg/dL);中度(2+),血清酶水平升高伴黄疸(TBIL ≥ 2.5 mg/dL)或凝血功能障碍(INR > 1.5),但无需住院;中重度(3+),血清酶水平升高伴黄疸或凝血功能障碍,需要住院;重度(4+),黄疸伴肝脏或其他器官(如肾脏或肺)衰竭征象;致命(5+),因DILI事件死亡或接受肝移植。

### 肝损伤的临床分型和因果关系评估

肝损伤类型基于R值进行评估,R值 = [(ALT值/ALT ULN)/(ALP值/ALP ULN)]。按照惯例,肝细胞型DILI定义为R ≥ 5,胆汁淤积型DILI定义为R ≤ 2,混合型DILI定义为R > 2且 < 5³⁵。每个病例应用的R比值根据入院时的值计算。采用Roussel Uclaf因果关系评估法评估已确定的因果关系。因果关系评估分为:高度可能(> 8)、可能(6–8)、有可能(3–5)、不太可能(1或2)或排除(0)³⁵,³⁶。

### 血清AOPPs和IMA的测定

AOPP测定基于Witko-Sarsat等人报道的分光光度法⁹。我们使用OxiSelect AOPP检测试剂盒(Cell Biolabs,CA,美国)测定AOPP血清水平。IMA采用比色法测定,如Bar-Or等人先前报道的方法³⁷。简言之,将100 μL血清加入25 μL 0.1%(w/v)氯化钴水溶液(Sigma,CoCl₂ × 6H₂O)中,轻轻混匀,孵育10分钟以使钴与ALB充分结合。随后,加入25 μL二硫苏糖醇(DTT)(Sigma,1.5 mg/mL H₂O)作为显色剂,孵育2分钟。最后,加入150 μL 0.9% NaCl终止反应。使用分光光度计(Epoch 2微孔板分光光度计)在492 nm处测量吸光度;将含DTT的样品显色与不含DTT的样品进行比较(数值以ABSU报告)。

### 统计分析

描述性统计以均数±标准差或例数(百分比)表示。分类数据采用卡方检验或Fisher精确检验进行比较。连续变量采用Wilcoxon/Kruskal-Wallis检验进行比较。进行相关分析以确定氧化应激生物标志物与临床参数之间的关系。为比较不同氧化应激生物标志物的预测价值,计算了AUROC。统计分析使用IBM SPSS v24.0 for Windows(IBM Corp.,Armonk,NY,美国)进行。P < 0.05表示差异有统计学意义。

---

## 补充信息

补充信息

## 致谢

作者感谢所有参与本研究的患者和健康志愿者,以及医院的所有工作人员和护理团队。本研究得到浙江省科技重点项目资助(#2017C03051)。

## 作者贡献

作者职责如下——李兰娟和徐晓伟设计研究。肖兰兰、张芬、赵亚磊和张凌剑采集血样。谢忠阳和黄凯洲采集并分析临床数据。肖兰兰和欧阳晓曦进行实验(AOPPs和IMA检测)并分析数据。肖兰兰撰写初稿,其他作者对初稿进行了重要修改。所有作者对最终报告均有贡献并同意投稿发表。

## 数据可用性

数据集和原始图片可根据要求从通讯作者处获取。

## 利益冲突

作者声明无利益冲突。

## 脚注

**出版商说明:** Springer Nature对已出版地图和机构隶属关系中的管辖权主张保持中立。

**共同第一作者:** 肖兰兰和张芬。

**通讯作者信息:** 徐晓伟,邮箱:xxw69@zju.edu.cn。 李兰娟,邮箱:ljli@zju.edu.cn。

补充信息可在10.1038/s41598-020-75141-2获取。