Preprint
Review

This version is not peer-reviewed.

The Role of FGF1 in Chronic Liver Diseases

Submitted:

20 May 2026

Posted:

21 May 2026

You are already at the latest version

Abstract
Chronic liver disease (CLD) constitutes a major global health burden, with high morbidity and mortality, limited treatment options for several etiologies, and an urgent need for novel therapeutic targets. Fibroblast growth factor 1 (FGF1) is a unique member of the FGF family capable of binding all four FGFR subtypes, thereby regulating multiple signaling pathways including PI3K/AKT, Ras/MAPK, and PLCγ, which are involved in metabolism, cell survival, proliferation, and tissue repair. Emerging evidence highlights the multifaceted and context-dependent roles of FGF1 in CLD. In drug-induced liver injury (DILI) caused by anti-tuberculosis drugs, acetaminophen, or doxorubicin, FGF1 exerts protective effects by restoring bile acid homeostasis, reducing oxidative stress, inflammation, and apoptosis. In metabolic-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD), FGF1 ameliorates hepatic steatosis, oxidative injury, and insulin resistance through downregulation of SREBP1, upregulation of PPARα, and activation of Nrf2-mediated antioxidant responses. Conversely, in primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC), FGF1 aggravates ductular reaction, biliary senescence, and liver fibrosis via upregulation of SASP and TGF-β1, suggesting that inhibition of the FGF1/FGFR axis may be therapeutic. For alcohol-related liver disease (ALD), although direct experimental evidence is lacking, FGF1 is hypothesized to confer protection given its known activities against oxidative stress, lipid dysregulation, and cell death. Despite its promise, the mitogenic potential of FGF1 raises safety concerns; however, N-terminally modified FGF1 analogs (e.g., FGF1Δ) retain metabolic benefits with reduced proliferative activity. Collectively, FGF1 represents a versatile and disease-dependent regulator in CLD, warranting further mechanistic studies, safety evaluations, and development of targeted analogs as a novel therapeutic strategy for difficult-to-treat liver diseases.
Keywords: 
;  

1. Introduction

Chronic liver disease (CLD) represents a major global public health challenge, imposing an enormous social and economic burden with high morbidity and mortality worldwide. Approximately 2 million people die from liver diseases each year [1], and the quality of life of affected patients is severely impaired, accompanied by increased risks of various complications, heavy medical expenses, and significant loss of disability-adjusted life years [2]. Among those aged 25 to 49, liver diseases are the 12th leading cause of disability-adjusted life years, and this potential loss of life is even higher in developed regions like Europe [3,4]. Historically, hepatitis virus infection has been the primary cause of CLD, but with the popularization of vaccination and the application of targeted therapeutic drugs, its proportion is gradually declining. Instead, drug-induced liver injury (DILI), alcohol-related liver disease (ALD), metabolic-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD), and primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) have emerged as the predominant etiologies of CLD in many developed areas, and some of these diseases still lack specific and effective targeted therapeutic drugs [1,5,6,7]. The complex pathogenesis of CLD involves multiple pathways including oxidative stress, lipid metabolism disorder, mitochondrial dysfunction, immune response abnormality, and bile acid homeostasis imbalance, highlighting the urgent need to explore novel regulatory molecules and therapeutic targets for the development of effective intervention strategies.
Fibroblast Growth Factor 1 (FGF1), also known as acidic FGF (aFGF), is a small polypeptide with a molecular weight of approximately 17-18 kDa. Distinguished from classic secretory proteins, FGF1 lacks a typical secretory signal peptide and is secreted by cells into the extracellular space via a paracrine pathway, exerting biological functions by binding to fibroblast growth factor receptors (FGFR) and heparan sulfate proteoglycan as an auxiliary factor [8,9]. Uniquely, FGF1 is the only protein in the FGF family that can bind to all four FGFR subtypes (FGFR1 to FGFR4), enabling it to activate multiple downstream signaling pathways and regulate diverse physiological and pathological processes [10,11]. Through activating the phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K)/AKT pathway, FGF1 modulates metabolic regulation, glucose uptake, and cell survival [12]. By activating the Ras/mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway, FGF1 promotes cell proliferation and differentiation, and supports tissue repair and metabolic regulation [13,14]. Via the phospholipase C γ (PLCγ) pathway, FGF1 promotes intracellular calcium signal transduction and activation of protein kinase C (PKC), thereby regulating gene expression and cellular metabolism [15]. Additionally, FGF1 regulates cell migration, differentiation, proliferation, apoptosis and wound healing by increasing the phosphorylation level of STAT3 [16]. As a crucial metabolic regulatory molecule, FGF1 is widely expressed in various tissues of the body, and accumulating studies have demonstrated its important regulatory roles in the occurrence and development of multiple CLDs, either exerting protective effects by alleviating liver injury or participating in disease progression by regulating biliary response and fibrosis, making it a potential therapeutic target for CLD.

2. The Role of FGF1 in Drug-Induced Liver Injury

Drug-induced liver injury (DILI) refers to liver damage caused by drug exposure. Its clinical manifestations and pathological mechanisms vary with drug characteristics, dosage, exposure duration, and host-specific factors [17]. The identified mechanisms include mitochondrial dysfunction, excessive reactive oxygen species (ROS) production, hepatocyte apoptosis /necrosis, and immune-mediated bile duct damage [18]. The etiologies of DILI exhibit regional differences: antiretroviral drugs, anti-tuberculosis drugs and herbal medicines are the main causes of DILI in Asia and Africa, while antibiotics, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and psychotropic drugs predominate in Europe and the United States [19].
The long course of tuberculosis and the hepatotoxicity of anti-tuberculosis drugs have made anti-tuberculosis DILI one of the most common types of DILI [20]. The risk of liver toxicity for first-line anti-tuberculosis drugs, such as isoniazid and rifampicin, ranges from 2% to 28% [21], which may lead to adjustments or interruptions in the anti-tuberculosis treatment and can even cause acute liver failure and even death in severe cases [22]. The mechanisms of hepatotoxicity associated with isoniazid and rifampicin include reduced bile acid transporters, leading to bile acid accumulation and disruption of the Bcl-2/Bax balance in hepatocytes, release of cytochrome c, and triggering of cell apoptosis [23]. Lin et al. found that serum total bile acid levels significantly increase and the liver FGF1 expression levels decrease in mice treated with isoniazid and rifampicin, and that exogenous FGF1 administration can restore the bile acid homeostasis and alleviate the liver damage [20]. Further research has revealed the FGF1 can act as a negative regulator of bile acid synthase, inhibiting its expression through the FGFR4-ERK1/2-HNF4 signaling pathway [20].
Acetaminophen, a widely used analgesic and antipyretic, can cause to severe liver damage or even death [24,25]. Excessive acetaminophen leads to the formation of excessive NAPQI in the liver, which depletes large amounts of glutathione and forms toxic protein adducts, further inducing mitochondrial dysfunction, oxidative stress, inflammation, and DNA damage [26,27,28,29]. Under conditions of acetaminophen overdose, mouse serum ALT and AST levels significantly increased, with severe inflammation, apoptosis, oxidative stress, and endoplasmic reticulum stress observed in hepatocytes, including elevated inflammatory factors IL-6 and TNF-α, upregulation of pro-apoptotic protein Bax, and downregulation of anti-apoptotic protein Bcl-2. Injection of FGF1 could reverse these pathological changes [30]. Currently, N-acetylcysteine is the only approved antidote for acetaminophen overdose, but its treatment window is relatively short, making FGF1 a promising alternative intervention strategy [31].
Doxorubicin (DOX), a broad-spectrum anti-tumor drug, directly damages the liver (the main organ involved in the metabolism and detoxification) through ROS-induced oxidative stress [32,33]. The use of DOX leads to decreased body weight and liver weight, increased ALT and AST in mice, which is more severe in FGF1 knockout mic [34]. FGF1 deficiency reduces Nrf2-mediated antioxidant gene expression, increases 3-nitroso modification of various proteins and liver malondialdehyde content, further exacerbating oxidative stress and liver damage [34]. Exogenous FGF1 administration can alleviate DOX-induced liver injury, inflammation, and hepatocyte apoptosis, and can synergize with resveratrol to enhance its protective effect against liver injury [35].
Given the limited clinical treatment options for DILI (mostly only drug withdrawal) [17], FGF1 is expected to become a precise intervention target for DILI therapeutic drug development.

3. The Role of FGF1 in Metabolic Liver Diseases

Metabolic associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD), formerly known as non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), has undergone a name change that highlights the bidirectional interaction between fatty liver and metabolic changes, and emphasizes that its onset excludes alcohol consumption and other independent liver disease factors [36]. MAFLD is the most prevalent metabolic CLD, affecting approximately 25% of the global population, with a projected increase to 33.5% of adults by 2030 [37,38,39]. It is characterized by hepatic steatosis accompanied by at least one cardiometabolic risk factor, such as obesity, type 2 diabetes, hypertension or dyslipidemia. Its core pathogenesis involves lipid metabolism disorder, mitochondrial dysfunction, oxidative stress, insulin resistance, and hyperinsulinemia [40]. FGF1 exerts a multifaceted protective effect on MAFLD through regulating these key pathological links.
Dysregulation of liver lipid metabolism can lead to hepatic steatosis resulting from disrupted balance between fatty acid uptake, fat synthesis, oxidation, and output which results from of hepatic steatosis. Fat synthesis is mainly regulated by the transcription factor SREBP1, which promotes lipid accumulation by regulating the expression of downstream fatty acid synthase (FAS), stearoyl CoA Desaturase-1 (SCD-1) and other fat synthesis related enzymes [41,42]. Fat oxidation is regulated by peroxisome proliferator activated receptor alpha (PPARα), which enhances fat oxidation by activating genes involved in mitochondrial, peroxisome, and endoplasmic reticulum lipid oxidation, and thereby avoiding excessive liver fat accumulation [43]. FGF1 treatment of MAFLD mice can effectively reduce hepatic steatosis, and serum AST and ALT levels by downregulating SREBP1 expression and upregulating PPARα expression, thereby weakening fat synthesis and enhancing fat oxidation [44,45].
Mitochondrial dysfunction plays an important role in MAFLD progression. Excessive lipid accumulation induces mitochondrial dysfunction, impairing energy production, reducing oxidative capacity, and increasing ROS generation [46]. These ROS can further damage mitochondrial β-oxidation function and consume mitochondrial antioxidants such as glutathione, thereby exacerbating mitochondrial damage and forming a vicious cycle [47,48]. In MAFLD mice, FGF1 treatment significantly promotes Nrf2 nuclear translocation, and increases the expression of downstream antioxidant enzymes such as NAD(P)H dehydrogenase, counteracting oxidative damage caused by lipid overload [45].
There is a bidirectional relationship between MAFLD and metabolic diseases: obesity and diabetes patients have a higher prevalence of MAFLD, and vice versa [49]. Improving metabolic diseases plays an important role in the treatment and prognosis of MAFLD [50]. FGF1 has been reported to improve lipid metabolism and maintain glucose homeostasis in diabetes and obesity in recent years [51,52]. FGF1 improves insulin resistance by increasing insulin receptor substrate 1 (IRS1) phosphorylation, phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K) pathway, and promoting translocation of type 4 glucose transporter (GLUT4) to the cell membrane, thereby enhancing cellular glucose uptake, and maintaining glucose homeostasis [53,54]. Collectively, the multifaceted protective effect of FGF1 makes a potential target for MAFLD treatment.

4. The Role of FGF1 in Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis

Primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) is a progressive chronic cholestatic CLD characterized by intrahepatic and/or extrahepatic bile duct injury, manifested as bile duct inflammation, fibrosis, and stenosis, which eventually progresses to liver cirrhosis and end-stage liver failure [55]. Its pathogenesis is not yet fully understood, and is believed to be driven by a combination of genetic susceptibility, environmental exposure, abnormal immune responses, bile acid homeostasis disturbance, and gut microbiota dysbiosis [56]. Unlike its protective role in MAFLD, FGF1 plays a promotive role in PSC progression by regulating biliary response and liver fibrosis. Research has found that in a PSC mouse model, FGFR1-4 are upregulated in bile duct cells, which exhibit immunoreactivity to FGF1. Exogenous FGF1 exacerbates ductal response, liver inflammation, and fibrosis, while inhibition of the FGF1/FGFR signaling axis (via FGFR inhibitors or FGF1 monoclonal antibodies) effectively alleviates these pathological changes [57]. The underlying mechanism is that FGF1 upregulates the expression of Senescence-Associated Secretory Phenotype (SASP) and TGF-β1, which induces biliary proliferation/ductal response and biliary aging, and subsequently activates hematopoietic liver cells and liver fibrosis through paracrine mechanisms. Targeting the FGF1/FGFR signaling axis can reduce biliary aging, SASP release, and ductal response, thus mitigating PSC-related liver injury and fibrosis [57,58,59], indicating that this axis is a novel potential therapeutic target for PSC intervention.
Currently, PSC still lacks effective treatment methods, and combination drug therapy targeting multiple pathogenic aspects, including the FGF1/FGFR signaling axis , may provide new opportunities [60].

6. Discussion and Prospect

Some CLDs, such as ALD and anti-tuberculosis drug-induced liver damage, still lack FDA and EMA approved therapeutic drugs globally. The high prevalence of ALD and the clinical dilemma between liver injury treatment and anti-tuberculosis treatment make it crucial to search for new therapeutic targets and develop specific drugs. FGF1, as an important metabolic regulatory molecule, is expected to become a promising new target. Currently, FGF family members (FGF21, FGF19) have entered clinical trials, providing a valuable reference for the future development of FGF1-based CLD therapeutics.
However, the potential mitogenic activity of FGF1 may pose a risk of tumorigenesis, which is a key challenge for its clinical translation. Fortunately, the N-terminal deficient FGF1 analogue (FGF1Δ) retains metabolic regulatory functions (e.g., hypoglycemic effect) while exhibiting low mitogenic activity in vitro, providing a feasible strategy for the development of safer FGF1-based drugs [65]. Future research should focus on clarifying the tissue-specific and disease-specific regulatory mechanisms of FGF1 in CLDs, conducting in-depth safety evaluations and metabolic pathway studies, and developing FGF1 analogues or targeted modulators with strong CLD therapeutic effects and minimal side effects. In addition, further experimental verification of the protective effect and mechanism of FGF1 in ALD is urgently needed to provide a theoretical basis for its clinical application in ALD treatment. With the continuous deepening of research, FGF1 is expected to provide a new direction for the precise treatment of CLDs and bring new hope for patients with these currently difficult-to-treat liver diseases.

Author Contributions

TL contributed to the Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing. MY, LH and JW contributed to Writing – review and editing. YT contributed to Project administration, Conceptualization and Writing – review and editing. DL contributed to Project administration and Resources.

Funding

This work was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of Changsha City (no. kq2502023).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

None declared.

References

  1. Asrani, S.K.; Devarbhavi, H.; Eaton, J.; Kamath, P.S. Burden of liver diseases in the world. J. Hepatol. 2019, 70(1), 151–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Stepanova, M.; De Avila, L.; Afendy, M.; et al. Direct and Indirect Economic Burden of Chronic Liver Disease in the United States. Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology: the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association 2017, 15(5), 759–766.e5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. GBD, C.C. The global, regional, and national burden of cirrhosis by cause in 195 countries and territories, 1990-2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2020, 5(3), 245–266. [Google Scholar]
  4. Jepsen, P.; Younossi, Z.M. The global burden of cirrhosis: A review of disability-adjusted life-years lost and unmet needs. J. Hepatol. 2021, 75 Suppl 1, S3–S13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Younossi, Z.M.; Blissett, D.; Blissett, R.; et al. The economic and clinical burden of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in the United States and Europe. Hepatology . 2016, 64(5), 1577–1586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Younossi, Z.M.; Stepanova, M.; Afendy, M.; et al. Changes in the prevalence of the most common causes of chronic liver diseases in the United States from 1988 to 2008. Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology: the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association 2011, 9(6), 524–e60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Björnsson, E.S.; Bergmann, O.M.; Björnsson, H.K.; Kvaran, R.B.; Olafsson, S. Incidence, presentation, and outcomes in patients with drug-induced liver injury in the general population of Iceland. Gastroenterology 2013, 144(7), 1419–e20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Jamal, S.B.; Hockman, D. FGF1. Differentiation 2024, 139, 100802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Wiedlocha, A.; Sorensen, V. Signaling, internalization, and intracellular activity of fibroblast growth factor. Curr. Top. Microbiol. Immunol. 2004, 286, 45–79. [Google Scholar]
  10. Starobova, H.; Nadar, E.I.; Vetter, I. The NLRP3 Inflammasome: Role and Therapeutic Potential in Pain Treatment. Front Physiol. 2020, 11, 1016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Schlessinger, J. Cell signaling by receptor tyrosine kinases. Cell. 2000, 103(2), 211–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Bu, T.; Gao, X.; Zhang, R.; Xu, Y. FGF1 as a New Promising Therapeutic Target in Type 2 Diabetes: Advances in Research and Clinical Trials. Diabetes Metab. Syndr. Obes. 2025, 18, 1137–1149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Tome, D.; Dias, M.S.; Correia, J.; Almeida, R.D. Fibroblast growth factor signaling in axons: from development to disease. Cell Commun. Signal. 2023, 21(1), 290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Farooq, M.; Khan, A.W.; Kim, M.S.; Choi, S. The Role of Fibroblast Growth Factor (FGF) Signaling in Tissue Repair and Regeneration. Cells 2021, 10(11). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Dhlamini, Q.; Wang, W.; Feng, G.; et al. FGF1 alleviates LPS-induced acute lung injury via suppression of inflammation and oxidative stress. Mol. Med. 2022, 28(1), 73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Dudka, A.A.; Sweet, S.M.M.; Heath, J.K. Signal transducers and activators of transcription-3 binding to the fibroblast growth factor receptor is activated by receptor amplification. Cancer Res. 2010, 70(8), 3391–3401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Skat-Rørdam, J.; Lykkesfeldt, J.; Gluud, L.L.; Tveden-Nyborg, P. Mechanisms of drug induced liver injury. Cell. Mol. Life Sci. CMLS 2025, 82(1), 213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Allison, R.; Guraka, A.; Shawa, I.T.; et al. Drug induced liver injury - a 2023 update. J. Toxicol. Environ. Heal. Part B Crit. Rev. 2023, 26(8), 442–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Low, E.X.S.; Zheng, Q.; Chan, E.; Lim, S.G. Drug induced liver injury: East versus West - a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin. Mol. Hepatol. 2020, 26(2), 142–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Lin, Q.; Zhang, J.; Qi, J.; et al. Hepatocyte-Derived FGF1 Alleviates Isoniazid and Rifampicin-Induced Liver Injury by Regulating HNF4alpha-Mediated Bile Acids Synthesis. Adv. Sci. (Weinh) 2025, 12(7), e2408688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Lim, W.S.; Avery, A.; Kon, O.M.; Dedicoat, M. Anti-tuberculosis drug-induced liver injury. BMJ 2023, 383, e074866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Lewis, J.H.; Korkmaz, S.Y.; Rizk, C.A.; Copeland, M.J. Diagnosis, prevention and risk-management of drug-induced liver injury due to medications used to treat mycobacterium tuberculosis. Expert Opin. Drug Saf. 2024, 23(9), 1093–1107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Ezhilarasan, D. Antitubercular drugs induced liver injury: an updated insight into molecular mechanisms. Drug Metab. Rev. 2023, 55(3), 239–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Ohashi, N.; Kohno, T. Analgesic Effect of Acetaminophen: A Review of Known and Novel Mechanisms of Action. Front Pharmacol. 2020, 11, 580289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Fisher, E.S.; Curry, S.C. Evaluation and treatment of acetaminophen toxicity. Adv. Pharmacol. 2019, 85, 263–272. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  26. Gul, H.; Uysal, B.; Cakir, E.; et al. The protective effects of ozone therapy in a rat model of acetaminophen-induced liver injury. Env. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2012, 34(1), 81–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Li, G.; Chen, J.; Wang, C.; et al. Curcumin protects against acetaminophen-induced apoptosis in hepatic injury. World J. Gastroenterol. 2013, 19(42), 7440–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Rivera, P.; Pastor, A.; Arrabal, S.; et al. Acetaminophen-Induced Liver Injury Alters the Acyl Ethanolamine-Based Anti-Inflammatory Signaling System in Liver. Front Pharmacol. 2017, 8, 705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Jaeschke, H.; Ramachandran, A. Acetaminophen Hepatotoxicity: Paradigm for Understanding Mechanisms of Drug-Induced Liver Injury. Annu Rev. Pathol. 2024, 19, 453–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Wang, X.; Zhang, X.; Wang, F.; et al. FGF1 protects against APAP-induced hepatotoxicity via suppression of oxidative and endoplasmic reticulum stress. Clin. Res. Hepatol. Gastroenterol. 2019, 43(6), 707–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Smilkstein, M.J.; Knapp, G.L.; Kulig, K.W.; Rumack, B.H. Efficacy of oral N-acetylcysteine in the treatment of acetaminophen overdose. Analysis of the national multicenter study (1976 to 1985). N Engl. J. Med. 1988, 319(24), 1557–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Tang, L.; Jiang, W.; Wu, L.; et al. TPGS2000-DOX Prodrug Micelles for Improving Breast Cancer Therapy. Int. J. Nanomed. 2021, 16, 7875–7890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Prasanna, P.L.; Renu, K.; Valsala Gopalakrishnan, A. New molecular and biochemical insights of doxorubicin-induced hepatotoxicity. Life Sci. 2020, 250, 117599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Gu, C.; Liu, Z.; Li, Y.; et al. Endogenous FGF1 Deficiency Aggravates Doxorubicin-Induced Hepatotoxicity. Toxics 2023, 11(11). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Xu, X.; Liu, Q.; Li, J.; et al. Co-Treatment With Resveratrol and FGF1 Protects Against Acute Liver Toxicity After Doxorubicin Treatment via the AMPK/NRF2 Pathway. Front Pharmacol. 2022, 13, 940406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Pipitone, R.M.; Ciccioli, C.; Infantino, G.; et al. MAFLD: a multisystem disease. Ther. Adv. Endocrinol. Metab. 2023, 14, 20420188221145549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Younossi, Z.; Anstee, Q.M.; Marietti, M.; et al. Global burden of NAFLD and NASH: trends, predictions, risk factors and prevention. Nat. Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2018, 15(1), 11–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Kalligeros, M.; Vassilopoulos, A.; Vassilopoulos, S.; et al. Prevalence of Steatotic Liver Disease (MASLD, MetALD, and ALD) in the United States: NHANES 2017-2020. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2024, 22(6), 1330–1332.e4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Younossi, Z.M.; Golabi, P.; Price, J.K.; et al. The Global Epidemiology of Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease and Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis Among Patients With Type 2 Diabetes. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2024, 22(10), 1999–2010.e8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Mejia-Guzman, J.E.; Belmont-Hernandez, R.A.; Chavez-Tapia, N.C.; Uribe, M.; Nuno-Lambarri, N. Metabolic-Dysfunction-Associated Steatotic Liver Disease: Molecular Mechanisms, Clinical Implications, and Emerging Therapeutic Strategies. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2025, 26(7). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Sozen, E.; Demirel-Yalciner, T.; Sari, D.; et al. Deficiency of SREBP1c modulates autophagy mediated lipid droplet catabolism during oleic acid induced steatosis. Metab. Open. 2021, 12, 100138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Zhu, C.; Huang, M.; Kim, H.; et al. SIRT6 controls hepatic lipogenesis by suppressing LXR, ChREBP, and SREBP1. Biochim Biophys. Acta Mol. Basis Dis. 2021, 1867(12), 166249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Li, X.; Ji, P.; Ni, X.; et al. Regulation of PPAR-gamma activity in lipid-laden hepatocytes affects macrophage polarization and inflammation in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. World J. Hepatol. 2022, 14(7), 1365–1381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Liu, W.; Struik, D.; Nies, V.J.M.; et al. Effective treatment of steatosis and steatohepatitis by fibroblast growth factor 1 in mouse models of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A 2016, 113(8), 2288–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Lin, Q.; Huang, Z.; Cai, G.; et al. Activating Adenosine Monophosphate-Activated Protein Kinase Mediates Fibroblast Growth Factor 1 Protection From Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease in Mice. Hepatology 2021, 73(6), 2206–2222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Ajaz, S.; McPhail, M.J.; Gnudi, L.; et al. Mitochondrial dysfunction as a mechanistic biomarker in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). Mitochondrion 2021, 57, 119–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Wu, Y.; Chen, Z.; Fuda, H.; et al. Oxidative Stress Linked Organ Lipid Hydroperoxidation and Dysregulation in Mouse Model of Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis: Revealed by Lipidomic Profiling of Liver and Kidney. Antioxidants 2021, 10(10). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Rauchbach, E.; Zeigerman, H.; Abu-Halaka, D.; Tirosh, O. Cholesterol Induces Oxidative Stress, Mitochondrial Damage and Death in Hepatic Stellate Cells to Mitigate Liver Fibrosis in Mice Model of NASH. Antioxidants 2022, 11(3). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Younossi, Z.M.; Koenig, A.B.; Abdelatif, D.; et al. Global epidemiology of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease-Meta-analytic assessment of prevalence, incidence, and outcomes. Hepatology 2016, 64(1), 73–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Pipitone, R.M.; Ciccioli, C.; Infantino, G.; et al. MAFLD: a multisystem disease. Ther. Adv. Endocrinol. Metab. 2023, 14, 20420188221145549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Jonker, J.W.; Suh, J.M.; Atkins, A.R.; et al. A PPARgamma-FGF1 axis is required for adaptive adipose remodelling and metabolic homeostasis. Nature 2012, 485(7398), 391–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Suh, J.M.; Jonker, J.W.; Ahmadian, M.; et al. Endocrinization of FGF1 produces a neomorphic and potent insulin sensitizer. Nature 2014, 513(7518), 436–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Gasser, E.; Moutos, C.P.; Downes, M.; Evans, R.M. FGF1 - a new weapon to control type 2 diabetes mellitus. Nat. Rev. Endocrinol. 2017, 13(10), 599–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Itoh, N. Hormone-like (endocrine) Fgfs: their evolutionary history and roles in development, metabolism, and disease. Cell Tissue Res. 2010, 342(1), 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Lindstrom, L.; Jorgensen, K.K.; Boberg, K.M.; et al. Risk factors and prognosis for recurrent primary sclerosing cholangitis after liver transplantation: a Nordic Multicentre Study. Scand. J. Gastroenterol. 2018, 53(3), 297–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Yokoda, R.T.; Carey, E.J. Primary Biliary Cholangitis and Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2019, 114(10), 1593–1605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. O’Brien, A.; Zhou, T.; White, T.; et al. FGF1 Signaling Modulates Biliary Injury and Liver Fibrosis in the Mdr2(-/-) Mouse Model of Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis. Hepatol. Commun. 2022, 6(7), 1574–1588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Wan, Y.; Meng, F.; Wu, N.; et al. Substance P increases liver fibrosis by differential changes in senescence of cholangiocytes and hepatic stellate cells. Hepatology 2017, 66(2), 528–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Wu, N.; Baiocchi, L.; Zhou, T.; et al. Functional Role of the Secretin/Secretin Receptor Signaling During Cholestatic Liver Injury. Hepatology 2020, 72(6), 2219–2227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Rabiee, A.; Silveira, M.G. Primary sclerosing cholangitis. Transl. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2021, 6, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Panel, M.; European AFTS; Clinical PGPC; EASL GBR. EASL recommendations on treatment of hepatitis C: Final update of the series(☆). J. Hepatol. 2020, 73(5), 1170–1218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Jophlin, L.L.; Singal, A.K.; Bataller, R.; et al. ACG Clinical Guideline: Alcohol-Associated Liver Disease. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2024, 119(1), 30–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Danpanichkul, P.; Díaz, L.A.; Suparan, K.; et al. Global epidemiology of alcohol-related liver disease, liver cancer, and alcohol use disorder, 2000-2021. Clin. Mol. Hepatol. 2025, 31(2), 525–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Hong, X.; Huang, S.; Jiang, H.; et al. Alcohol-related liver disease (ALD): current perspectives on pathogenesis, therapeutic strategies, and animal models. Front Pharmacol. 2024, 15, 1432480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Gasser, E.; Sancar, G.; Downes, M.; Evans, R.M. Metabolic Messengers: fibroblast growth factor 1. Nat. Metab. 2022, 4(6), 663–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Mechanisms of FGF1 in different types of chronic liver disease.
Table 1. Mechanisms of FGF1 in different types of chronic liver disease.
Disease Category Specific Cause/Model Role of FGF1 Main Mechanisms Key Pathways/Targets
Drug-Induced Liver Injury Anti-tuberculosis drugs (Isoniazid + Rifampicin) Protective Restores bile acid homeostasis; suppresses bile acid synthesis enzymes FGFR4-ERK1/2-HNF4α → downregulates CYP7A1
Acetaminophen overdose Protective Anti-inflammatory, anti-apoptotic, alleviates oxidative and ER stress Inhibits IL-6/TNF-α; downregulates Bax, upregulates Bcl-2
Doxorubicin (DOX) Protective Activates antioxidant system
Reduces oxidative stress and apoptosis
Activates Nrf2 → increases antioxidant enzymes
Metabolic-Associated Fatty Liver Disease High-fat diet / metabolic syndrome models Protective Suppresses lipogenesis, promotes fatty acid oxidation;
Alleviates oxidative stress
Improves insulin resistance.
Downregulates SREBP1, upregulates PPARα
Promotes Nrf2 nuclear translocation.
Activates IRS1/PI3K → GLUT4 translocation
Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis PSC mouse model (bile duct injury) Disease-promoting Induces cholangiocyte senescence, ductular reaction, and activates hepatic stellate cells → fibrosis FGF1/FGFR → upregulates SASP and TGF-β1 → biliary senescence + fibrosis
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
Prerpints.org logo

Preprints.org is a free preprint server supported by MDPI in Basel, Switzerland.

Subscribe

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

Privacy Settings

© 2026 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated