Go to The Journal of Clinical Investigation
  • About
  • Editors
  • Consulting Editors
  • For authors
  • Publication ethics
  • Publication alerts by email
  • Transfers
  • Advertising
  • Job board
  • Contact
  • Physician-Scientist Development
  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • By specialty
    • COVID-19
    • Cardiology
    • Immunology
    • Metabolism
    • Nephrology
    • Oncology
    • Pulmonology
    • All ...
  • Videos
  • Collections
    • In-Press Preview
    • Resource and Technical Advances
    • Clinical Research and Public Health
    • Research Letters
    • Editorials
    • Perspectives
    • Physician-Scientist Development
    • Reviews
    • Top read articles

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Specialties
  • In-Press Preview
  • Resource and Technical Advances
  • Clinical Research and Public Health
  • Research Letters
  • Editorials
  • Perspectives
  • Physician-Scientist Development
  • Reviews
  • Top read articles
  • About
  • Editors
  • Consulting Editors
  • For authors
  • Publication ethics
  • Publication alerts by email
  • Transfers
  • Advertising
  • Job board
  • Contact
Formation of colorectal liver metastases induces musculoskeletal and metabolic abnormalities consistent with exacerbated cachexia
Joshua R. Huot, Leah J. Novinger, Fabrizio Pin, Ashok Narasimhan, Teresa A. Zimmers, Thomas M. O’Connell, Andrea Bonetto
Joshua R. Huot, Leah J. Novinger, Fabrizio Pin, Ashok Narasimhan, Teresa A. Zimmers, Thomas M. O’Connell, Andrea Bonetto
View: Text | PDF
Research Article Cell biology Muscle biology

Formation of colorectal liver metastases induces musculoskeletal and metabolic abnormalities consistent with exacerbated cachexia

  • Text
  • PDF
Abstract

Advanced colorectal cancer (CRC) is often accompanied by development of liver metastases (LMs) and skeletal muscle wasting (i.e., cachexia). Despite plaguing the majority of CRC patients, cachexia remains unresolved. By using mice injected with Colon-26 mouse tumors, either subcutaneously (s.c.; C26) or intrasplenically to mimic hepatic dissemination of cancer cells (mC26), here we aimed to further characterize functional, molecular, and metabolic effects on skeletal muscle and examine whether LMs exacerbate CRC-induced cachexia. C26-derived LMs were associated with progressive loss of body weight, as well as with significant reductions in skeletal muscle size and strength, in line with reduced phosphorylation of markers of protein anabolism and enhanced protein catabolism. mC26 hosts showed prevalence of fibers with glycolytic metabolism and enhanced lipid accumulation, consistent with abnormalities of mitochondrial homeostasis and energy metabolism. In a comparison with mice bearing s.c. C26, cachexia appeared exacerbated in the mC26 hosts, as also supported by differentially expressed pathways within skeletal muscle. Overall, our model recapitulates the cachectic phenotype of metastatic CRC and reveals that formation of LMs resulting from CRC exacerbate cancer-induced skeletal muscle wasting by promoting differential gene expression signatures.

Authors

Joshua R. Huot, Leah J. Novinger, Fabrizio Pin, Ashok Narasimhan, Teresa A. Zimmers, Thomas M. O’Connell, Andrea Bonetto

×

Figure 1

mC26 tumor hosts experience a significant body weight (BW) reduction.

Options: View larger image (or click on image) Download as PowerPoint
mC26 tumor hosts experience a significant body weight (BW) reduction.
(A...
(A) BW curves in CD2F1 male mice (12 weeks old) intrasplenically injected with C26 tumor cells (250,000 cells/mouse in sterile PBS, mC26) or an equal volume of vehicle (Sham) (n = 5). (B) Net BW change (initial to final), expressed in grams. (C) Liver weights (normalized to initial body weight; IBW). (D) Representative whole liver and H&E staining of liver from Sham and mC26 mice. Black arrows indicate tumors, and images were taken at 20× magnification. Scale bars: 100 μm. (E) Quantification of relative tumor area within livers from Sham and mC26 mice. Data are expressed as mean ± SD. Two-tailed t tests were used to determine differences between Sham and mC26. Significance of the differences: ****P < 0.0001 versus Sham.

Copyright © 2026 American Society for Clinical Investigation
ISSN 2379-3708

Sign up for email alerts