Wenhua Bai
Zheng Zhu*- Department of Diagnostic Radiology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China
Metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) has evolved from a hepatic-centric condition to a systemic metabolic disorder, with multisystem complications driving clinical outcomes. This review comprehensively examines the pathogenesis and extrahepatic manifestations of MASLD, focusing on interorgan crosstalk. We first delineate the hepatic progression from steatosis to fibrotic metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH), emphasizing lipotoxicity, mitochondrial dysfunction, and inflammatory cascades. Subsequently, we analyze key extrahepatic axes (1): the liver-brain axis, where neuroinflammation and cognitive impairment are linked to hepatic metabolic disturbances (2); the gut-liver axis, highlighting roles of gut microbiota dysbiosis and intestinal permeability in disease progression; and (3) the liver-kidney axis, exploring shared fibrotic mechanisms and functional decline. Common pathways-including chronic inflammation, oxidative stress, and immune-metabolic dysregulation-underpin these systemic complications. Therapeutically, we advocate a shift from isolated liver-targeted approaches to integrated multisystem strategies. This review underscores the imperative to reconceptualize MASLD as a systemic disease, necessitating collaborative efforts to refine diagnostic frameworks and therapeutic paradigms for improving patient outcomes.
1 Introduction
Metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), previously termed non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), represents the most prevalent chronic liver condition globally, affecting approximately one-quarter of adults and posing a substantial public health burden (1, 2). It is no longer viewed merely as a hepatic manifestation of metabolic syndrome but is increasingly recognized as a multisystem disorder characterized by complex interactions between the liver and extrahepatic organs (2). This paradigm shift underscores that the pathogenesis and progression of MASLD extend beyond the liver, involving intricate crosstalk with the gut, brain, and kidneys. The 2023 nomenclature update to MASLD further emphasizes its metabolic nature and provides a more accurate framework for understanding its systemic impacts (3).
The progression of MASLD to metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH) and fibrosis is driven not only by intrahepatic events but also by dysfunction in extrahepatic organs (4). The gut-liver axis plays a pivotal role, where dysbiosis and increased intestinal permeability allow translocation of pathogen-associated molecular patterns, promoting hepatic inflammation (5, 6). The brain-liver axis mediates neuroendocrine disturbances that exacerbate metabolic dysfunction and insulin resistance (7). Additionally, the kidneys are implicated through shared pathophysiological pathways, including oxidative stress and chronic inflammation, which accelerate both hepatic and renal damage (2, 8). These interorgan communications form a vicious cycle, propelling the disease toward irreversible stages.
Given the escalating burden of MASLD and its associated extrahepatic complications-including cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, and cognitive impairment-there is an urgent need to elucidate the mechanisms by which extrahepatic organs contribute to MASH and fibrosis progression (6). Despite advances in pharmacological and lifestyle interventions, fully effective therapies remain elusive, partly due to an incomplete understanding of these systemic interactions. This review aims to synthesize current evidence on the roles of the gut, brain, and kidneys in MASLD pathophysiology, focusing on how each organ influences disease initiation, progression, and outcomes. Furthermore, we discuss emerging therapeutic strategies targeting these extrahepatic pathways and outline future research and clinical directions.
2 Hepatic pathogenesis: from steatosis to fibrotic MASH
The transition from simple steatosis to progressive MASH is orchestrated by a self-perpetuating cycle of metabolic insult, inflammatory amplification, and microenvironmental remodeling, ultimately driving irreversible hepatic fibrosis (1, 9, 10). This pathogenic cascade is initiated by a critical breakdown in hepatic lipid homeostasis, leading to the accumulation of excess triglycerides and cytotoxic free fatty acids within hepatocytes (>5% steatosis) (10). Lipotoxic stress overwhelms the capacity of mitochondria and the endoplasmic reticulum, culminating in profound oxidative stress and a surge of reactive oxygen species (ROS) (11). Beyond causing direct macromolecular damage, ROS serve as potent inflammatory second messengers, triggering the activation of resident Kupffer cells and the recruitment of peripheral immune cells (11, 12). These cells, in turn, unleash a torrent of pro-inflammatory cytokines (e.g., TNF-α, IL-6), which only exacerbate hepatocyte death but also set the stage for the next critical phase: fibrogenesis (13, 14).
A pivotal convergence point of this injury response is the activation of hepatic stellate cells (HSCs). In their quiescent state, HSCs store vitamin A; however, upon sustained exposure to ROS, inflammatory cytokines, and damage-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs) released from dying hepatocytes and activated macrophages, they undergo a dramatic phenotypic transformation into proliferative, fibrogenic myofibroblasts (15–17). Activated HSCs are the primary engines of fibrosis, depositing massive quantities of collagen and other extracellular matrix (ECM) components.
This process establishes a formidable vicious cycle: Activated HSCs themselves secrete pro-inflammatory and pro-fibrotic mediators, recruiting and activating more immune cells and perpetuating the inflammatory drive. Critically, the evolving fibrotic microenvironment itself becomes a major driver of progression. The accumulating ECM disrupts the normal architecture and function of Liver Sinusoidal Endothelial Cells (LSECs), leading to the loss of their characteristic fenestrations and capillarization (18, 19). This LSEC capillarization not only exacerbates hepatocellular injury by impairing nutrient and waste exchange but also directly perpetuates HSC activation (14), creating a feed-forward loop that renders the fibrotic process increasingly autonomous and irreversible.
The mode of hepatocyte death-whether apoptosis, necrosis, or necroptosis-further fuels this cycle (20). The release of cellular contents acts as a potent source of DAMPs, sustaining inflammation and providing continuous activation signals for HSCs. While the liver possesses inherent regenerative capacity, the relentless cross-talk between cell death, inflammation, and ECM deposition in MASH overwhelms these repair mechanisms, tipping the balance toward progressive scar formation.
As fibrosis advances, the hepatic microenvironment undergoes profound transformations, including aberrant angiogenesis and altered hemodynamics (21). These changes mark the progression to cirrhosis, characterized by architectural distortion and functional failure. Furthermore, this pro-inflammatory, pro-proliferative microenvironment fosters a fertile soil for carcinogenesis, significantly elevating the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) through mechanisms involving continued genomic damage and dysregulated cell signaling (22–24) (Figure 1).
Figure 1. The occurrence and progression of MASH under the synergistic influence of multiple factors. The etiology and progression of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (MASH) are multifaceted and intricate. Contributing factors include metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes, caused by insulin resistance (IR), which disrupt liver lipid metabolism and precipitate substantial hepatic fat accumulation. Subsequently, this condition engenders an overabundance of mitochondrial reactive oxygen species (ROS), resulting in oxidative stress that may impair mitochondrial function and lead to hepatocyte damage, culminating in cell death. The extensive demise of hepatocytes and ensuing liver damage provoke the mobilization and infiltration of immune cells, along with the activation of inflammatory pathways. For instance, the IL-22 and IL-17 cytokines, produced by neutrophils, stimulate neutrophil extracellular trap formation, which exacerbates liver injury and prompts an upsurge in pro-inflammatory cytokines, such as TGF-β and IL-6. This overexpression activates hepatic stellate cells (HSC), setting off a cascade that includes the production of the extracellular matrix, collagen deposition, and a disrupted equilibrium between tissue injury and repair. Progression to advanced liver fibrosis and cirrhosis constitutes the primary risk factors for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).
3 MASLD as a multisystem disease: key inter-organ axes and their mechanisms
MASLD is recognized as a multisystem disorder that extends beyond hepatic manifestations to involve multiple organ systems, including the brain, intestine, and kidneys (Figure 2). This systemic involvement underscores the complex interplay between metabolic dysregulation, chronic inflammation, and neuroendocrine pathways in disease progression.
Figure 2. Natural history and treatment strategy of MASLD, mechanism of action of extrahepatic organs on MASLD evolution. Extrahepatic factors significantly impact the onset and progression of Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease (MASLD). Representative extrahepatic organs include the brain, intestine, and kidney. The brain maintains metabolic equilibrium via the neuroendocrine system, facilitated by Brain-Derived Neurotrophic Factor (BDNF). The intestinal barrier influences lipid metabolism and inflammation, while the kidney, through the Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System (RAAS), plays a crucial role in liver fibrosis. These three organs work in concert to promote the development and advancement of MASLD. Under the influence of these extrahepatic and other factors, a healthy liver may transform into Non-Alcoholic Steatohepatitis (MASH) or simple steatosis, conditions collectively known as MASLD, distinguished by the presence or absence of intralobular inflammation. As the disease progresses, it can lead to liver fibrosis, cirrhosis, and potentially hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Simultaneously, exacerbation of MASLD may contribute to the development of cardiovascular disease and extrahepatic malignancies. Throughout the disease’s natural history, therapeutic interventions vary depending on the stage.
3.1 Liver-brain axis in MASLD
The interconnection between hepatic metabolic dysfunction and neurological impairment represents a critical aspect of MASLD pathophysiology. MASLD, regardless of severity, promotes systemic inflammation and metabolic anomalies that adversely affect cerebral function (25). Early-stage liver cirrhosis from MASLD has been confirmed to be associated with cognitive impairment (26, 27), behavioral alterations (28), and reduced total brain volume (29). In the late decompensated stages of the disease, hepatic encephalopathy is well-known to be a manifestation of its severity (9, 30).
This communication is fundamentally bidirectional. Efferent pathways from the brain regulate hepatic metabolism through autonomic nervous system outputs and neuroendocrine axes. The hypothalamus integrates peripheral signals to modulate energy homeostasis, influencing hepatic lipid metabolism and insulin sensitivity through sympathetic and parasympathetic outflow. Disruption of this brain-to-liver signaling, as evidenced in cancer cachexia studies where vagal dysfunction depletes hepatic HNF4α - a master regulator of metabolism - highlights the importance of intact brain-liver communication in maintaining metabolic homeostasis (31).Within this bidirectional network, brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) functions as a significant modulator at the interface of neural and metabolic processes. BDNF influences energy homeostasis through hypothalamic regulation of appetite and energy expenditure, enhancing leptin sensitivity while promoting sympathetic outflow that suppresses hepatic lipogenesis (32–35). Its role in glucose metabolism involves both potentiation of glucose-stimulated insulin secretion via pancreatic TrkB receptors and enhancement of peripheral insulin sensitivity, collectively ameliorating hepatic steatosis (36–38). Furthermore, BDNF supports vagus nerve-mediated anti-inflammatory pathways by maintaining afferent vagal fiber integrity essential for the inflammatory reflex (33), and modulating cholinergic signaling through α7nAChRs on hepatic macrophages, thereby constraining pro-inflammatory cytokine production (39, 40).
The role of neurotrophic factors in the liver is further supported by findings that BDNF and other neurokines (such as GFAP and GAP43) are significantly upregulated in fibrotic livers and contribute to HSC activation (41). Additionally, BDNF may influence liver fibrosis through its receptor p75, which is involved in regulating hepatic stellate cell differentiation and collagen production (42). Recent advances have identified additional molecular mediators in liver-brain communication. The integrated stress response in hepatic stellate cells - particularly through the noncanonical EIF3d-ATF4-S100P axis - drives metabolic reprogramming and liver fibrosis progression, establishing a pro-fibrotic hepatic environment that may adversely influence neurological outcomes (43, 44). On the therapeutic front, stimulating hepatic stellate cell-dependent extracellular matrix degradation via acid ceramidase inhibition and PKCα-ERK1/2-MMP-1 pathway activation offers a potential route for fibrosis resolution (45, 46).
The liver-brain axis operates through synergistic interactions where humoral, neural, and cellular pathways amplify each other’s effects. For instance, peripheral inflammation induced by hepatic damage can compromise blood-brain barrier integrity, allowing neurotoxic substances to enter the brain, while central nervous system responses further modulate hepatic inflammation and metabolism through autonomic outflow (47, 48). This reciprocal communication creates a self-reinforcing cycle that accelerates disease progression. Notably, liver-specific interventions such as siRNA targeting Cyclin M4 have been shown to reverse MASLD-associated social memory and sensorimotor deficits, restoring hippocampal synaptogenesis and mitochondrial function, which underscores the causal and therapeutically targetable nature of the liver-brain axis in MASLD-related neurological complications (49).
A deeper understanding of these liver-brain interactions promises to reveal novel therapeutic strategies for MASLD by simultaneously addressing both hepatic and neurological aspects of the disease.
3.2 The gut-liver axis: role of microbiota and intestinal barrier
In healthy individuals, intricate communication exists between the liver and the gut, enabling the formation of functional units known as enterohepatic axes. Anatomically, portal circulation links the liver and the gut, while the intestinal barrier restricts their direct connection. Nevertheless, in certain instances, excessive fat buildup resulting from alcohol or drug misuse, a high-fat diet, and intestinal inflammation can lead to alterations in intestinal epithelial cells and mucosa. These changes lead to the destruction of the intestinal barrier, the change of intracellular connectin, the increase of intestinal permeability and the disturbance of intestinal microbiota through various factors, thereby facilitating the onset and progression of MASLD (5, 50).
We next examine the breakdown of the intestinal mucosa’s mechanical barrier. This breakdown can be attributed to factors such as a high-fat diet, which can lead to intestinal microbial disorders, fostering pathogen growth and impairing the mucosal barrier. Inflammatory conditions also contribute to the contraction and relocation of tight junction (TJ) proteins, enlarging the TJ pores and increasing permeability (51). Consequently, gut bacteria and their byproducts, including endotoxins, are translocated through the portal system into the blood and liver, activating Kupfer cells and exacerbating the disease (50). Recent investigations into therapeutic strategies have demonstrated that compounds like ACT001 can alleviate MASLD by specifically restoring intestinal barrier integrity, highlighting the potential of targeting the mechanical barrier for intervention (52).
The significance of the chemical barrier within the intestinal tract cannot be overlooked, as it serves to protect the mucosal lining from the assault of microorganisms and enzymes. This barrier comprises substances such as gastric acid, mucus, mucin, bile, bile acids, glycosaminoglycans, digestive enzymes, lysozyme, and antimicrobial peptides. Among these, bile acids have garnered considerable attention due to their significant association with the development and progression of MASLD (53). A diet high in fat can alter the composition of the gut microbiota, leading to an increase in secondary bile acids, particularly deoxycholic acid, which contributes to microbial imbalance in the gut and promotes the progression of MASLD (54, 55). The molecular basis for this link is further elucidated by findings that certain interventions, such as ACT001, facilitate the generation of uncombined bile acids and their accumulation in the ileum, thereby downregulating the enteral Farnesoid X Receptor (FXR)-FGF15 pathway and contributing to MASLD improvement (52).
Next, the disruption of the intestinal immune barrier occurs. The key component of this barrier is IgA, which is secreted by lymphocytes and plasma cells. IgA specifically targets Gram-negative bacteria found in the gastrointestinal tract. However, when the intestinal mucosa is damaged, the effectiveness of IgA is compromised, leading to the facilitation of bacterial translocation within the intestine and contributing to inflammation development (50, 53, 56). Beyond impaired humoral immunity, cellular immune pathways also play a critical role. It has been shown that gut-primed neutrophils, assisted by intraepithelial lymphocytes, can migrate via the portal vein and release neutrophil extracellular traps in the liver, which subsequently activate Kupffer cells and exacerbate hepatic inflammation and injury, establishing a direct cellular link between intestinal and liver inflammation (57). Furthermore, intestinal inflammation raises intestinal permeability, facilitating the passage of bacteria and bacterial products like LPS into the bloodstream, thereby triggering systemic inflammatory responses, including in the liver (5, 58, 59).
It has to be mentioned that the gut microbial barrier is broken. A high-fat diet causes a disorder in the gut microbiome, altering its composition, increasing the proportion of pathogenic and gram-negative bacteria and decreasing the proportion of beneficial bacteria (53). The imbalance of intestinal microbes leads to changes in the intestinal microenvironment, such as reducing intestinal pH, increasing intestinal oxidative stress, and further damaging the intestinal barrier (60, 61). Owing to the variegated composition of the gut microbiota, it holds promise as an emergent biomarker and therapeutic target for MASLD. Interventions targeting the gut microbiota, encompassing antibiotic/probiotic therapies and fecal microbiota transplantation, have burgeoned as innovative strategies for the prevention and management of MASLD (62–64). Evidence from recent studies has revealed the role of specific microbial metabolites in this process. A notable example is the microbe-derived bile acid 3-succinylcholic acid (3-sucCA), which has been shown to hinder the progression of MASLD (65). Its protective effect is not mediated through conventional bile acid receptors like TGR5 or FXR, but rather through a positive modulation of the gut microbial ecosystem. Specifically, as a gut-restricted metabolite, 3-sucCA fosters the proliferation of the beneficial bacterium Akkermansia muciniphila, thereby reinforcing the integrity of the gut barrier and illustrating a novel mechanism of microbe-host interaction (65, 66).
Intestinal barrier damage and liver damage caused by different mechanisms interact. Damage to the intestinal barrier causes enterogenic inflammation and bacterial products to enter the liver and activate hepatic astrocytes, further promoting the occurrence of liver fibrosis and inflammation. Conversely, liver-derived inflammatory mediators and altered bile acid profiles can feedback to the gut, further compromising intestinal barrier integrity and amplifying the local inflammatory response. The occurrence and progression of liver disease further damage the intestinal barrier function, forming a vicious cycle.
3.3 The liver-kidney axis: shared mechanisms of fibrosis and dysfunction
The reclassification from NAFLD to MASLD necessitates a reassessment of the epidemiological patterns and interrelations with other chronic conditions (67, 68). In this context, the intimate link between MASLD and Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) has emerged as a significant area of focus. This connection can be attributed to a constellation of overlapping risk factors, notably Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, obesity, dyslipidemia, and insulin resistance. Evidence from large-scale epidemiological analyses indicates that although the association between MASLD and CKD is partly mediated by insulin resistance, the severity of liver fibrosis remains an independent risk factor for renal impairment, underscoring the complex interplay between shared metabolic derangements and direct organ injury (69). Furthermore, both diseases exhibit convergent molecular mechanisms, characterized by inflammation, oxidative stress, and fibrosis, which are ubiquitous features in MASLD and CKD, thereby reinforcing their interconnection (70–72). Remarkably, recent findings suggest a genetic predisposition to MASLD, potentially mediated by specific gene polymorphisms, such as the PNPLA3 rs738409 G allele, which might predispose individuals to renal dysfunction (67). This insight implies a potential bidirectional relationship between MASLD and CKD, indicating that MASLD’s progression could influence CKD onset and vice versa (71).
Kidney factors impact the development and progression of MASLD via the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS). Conversely, liver-derived factors can promote CKD through diverse pathways, suggesting a bidirectional pathogenic relationship (67, 73–76). Liver cells, such as hepatocytes, hepatic stellate cells, and Kupffer cells, express receptors for angiotensin and mineralocorticoid, components of the RAAS that are implicated in fibrotic inflammation within MASH (77–79).
Mineralocorticoid receptor (MR) activation is a determinant in the pathophysiology of various diseases, including MASLD (67, 80, 81). In studies have demonstrated that aldosterone can increase insulin resistance (IR) in adipocytes and hepatocytes by degrading IRS-1 and IRS-2, as well as by impairing normal adipocyte differentiation and function (79, 82). Additionally, aldosterone exerts multifaceted effects on immune cells expressing MR. Activation of MR in immune cells stimulates an inflammatory response, with MR activation in macrophages inducing a shift towards an inflammatory phenotype. In CD4+ lymphocytes, MR activation promotes differentiation into pro-inflammatory Th17 cells, thereby influencing the function of dendritic cells. Similarly, MR activation induces cytotoxic CD8+ T lymphocytes. These responses establish a pro-inflammatory environment in the liver, leading to increased secretion of IFN-γ and affecting hepatocyte lipid accumulation (83). In contrast, experimental studies have shown that MR antagonism provides a hepatoprotective effect against steatosis and fibrosis in NASH, which underscores the role of MR in promoting the development and progression of MASLD (84, 85).
Alternatively, research indicates that angiotensin II is a pivotal player in the progression of liver inflammation and fibrosis, with altered TLR4 and sphingosine kinase 1 (SphK1)/sphingosine 1-phosphate (S1P) signaling pathways being key contributors to the pathogenesis of MASLD (77). This suggests that angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE-Is) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) may represent effective therapeutic options for patients with MASLD (67, 86). ARBs mitigate insulin resistance by inhibiting the RAAS, leading to decreased cytokine production (including tumor necrosis factor-α), elevated adiponectin levels, and enhanced pancreatic insulin secretion and cellular insulin signaling. ARBs also exert anti-fibrotic effects by inhibiting the activation of hepatic stellate cells and reducing the secretion of pro-fibrotic cytokines such as transforming growth factor-β (87). Emerging therapeutic strategies are exploring the potential of activating the protective ACE2-Ang-(1–7)-Mas axis to restore RAAS balance and mitigate disease progression in both the liver and kidneys. The role of bioactive metabolites and the gut-liver-kidney axis is also gaining recognition (88). Accumulating evidence highlights that alterations in microbiota-derived metabolites, including bile acids, provide a crucial link between MASLD and CKD, suggesting that interventions targeting the gut microbiota may offer benefits for both organs (89).
Activation of the RAAS promotes oxidative stress, inflammation, and fibrosis, making the study of RAAS antagonists a potential treatment option for MASLD. The intricate crosstalk within the kidney-liver axis, mediated by an imbalanced RAAS and other factors, underscores the need for a holistic approach to managing patients with MASLD, particularly those with concurrent CKD.
3.4 Common mechanisms of systemic complications: beyond individual organ axes
While the liver-brain, gut-liver, and liver-kidney axes illustrate organ-specific pathways, the systemic progression of MASLD/MASH is driven by a convergence of overarching pathological mechanisms that transcend individual organs. These shared mechanisms-chronic inflammation, metabolic dysregulation, oxidative stress, and immune activation-form a synergistic network that amplifies disease severity across multiple systems (2, 90). Understanding these common pathways is crucial for developing holistic therapeutic strategies that target the disease’s multisystemic nature. These shared mechanisms and their systemic manifestations are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1. Expression patterns of genes associated with disease occurrence and progression via different pathways.
Chronic low-grade inflammation serves as a cornerstone of systemic complications. Hepatocyte injury and lipotoxicity in MASLD trigger the release of pro-inflammatory cytokines (e.g., TNF-α, IL-6, IL-1β) and damage-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs), which enter the systemic circulation via compromised hepatic sinusoids (91). This inflammatory milieu not only perpetuates hepatic steatosis and fibrosis but also contributes to blood-brain barrier dysfunction, neuroinflammation, and cognitive decline; intestinal barrier disruption and dysbiosis; and renal endothelial injury and tubulointerstitial fibrosis (92). The vagus nerve-mediated cholinergic anti-inflammatory pathway, as discussed in Section 3.1, represents a neuroimmunological bridge that modulates systemic inflammation but becomes impaired as MASLD progresses.
Mitochondrial dysfunction and oxidative stress are another unifying theme. In hepatocytes, lipid overload induces mitochondrial β-oxidation excess, generating reactive oxygen species (ROS) that promote lipid peroxidation, protein misfolding, and DNA damage. Beyond the liver, ROS and lipid peroxides (e.g., malondialdehyde) circulate systemically, contributing to neuronal oxidative damage, intestinal epithelial apoptosis, and glomerular sclerosis (91, 93, 94). Moreover, oxidative stress activates redox-sensitive transcription factors (e.g., NF-κB, Nrf2) and inflammasomes (e.g., NLRP3), further amplifying inflammatory responses across organs.
Immune system dysregulation, particularly innate immune activation, plays a pivotal role (95). Kupffer cell activation in the liver and macrophage infiltration in adipose tissue are well-established drivers of local inflammation. However, systemic immune cell trafficking-mediated by chemokines (e.g., CCL2, CXCL10) and adhesion molecules-facilitates crosstalk between organs. For instance, liver-derived cytokines promote microglial activation in the brain, while gut-derived endotoxins (e.g., LPS) prime Toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4) signaling in both hepatic and renal tissues (92, 96). Additionally, adaptive immune responses, including Th17 cell differentiation and autoantibody production, have been implicated in the progression of both MASH and extrahepatic autoimmune-like manifestations (95, 96).
Metabolic reprogramming and endocrine dysfunction further integrate systemic pathology. IR is a primary metabolic defect that exacerbates hepatic de novo lipogenesis, dysregulates hypothalamic appetite control, impairs gut barrier function, and promotes renal sodium retention and hypertension (90). Adipokine imbalance (e.g., decreased adiponectin, increased leptin) and bile acid signaling alterations also contribute to multisystem crosstalk. For example, bile acids influence cerebral function via FXR receptor activation in the brain, modulate gut microbiota composition, and affect renal electrolyte homeostasis (93).
In summary, these common mechanisms do not operate in isolation but engage in extensive crosstalk, forming self-amplifying feedback loops that drive disease progression across multiple organs. For instance, liver-derived DAMPs and pro-inflammatory cytokines exacerbate systemic inflammation, which in turn impairs the intestinal barrier integrity, leading to increased gut permeability and endotoxemia. This endotoxemia further primes hepatic and systemic immune responses, aggravating liver inflammation and insulin resistance. Concurrently, oxidative stress and metabolic dysregulation perpetuate this cycle by damaging cellular components and promoting lipotoxicity, which fuels further inflammatory signaling and mitochondrial dysfunction. This creates a vicious cycle of metabolic and inflammatory injury that transcends individual organ axes, underscoring the necessity for therapeutic strategies that simultaneously target multiple nodes within this interconnected network. Future research should prioritize integrative models that capture these interactions to guide the development of multisystem therapies.
4 Prospect of therapeutic measures
Extensive research has uncovered a range of pathological mechanisms of MASH. Based on these mechanisms, the treatment of MASH is currently categorized into three types: lifestyle intervention, drug therapy, and surgery. Lifestyle interventions are the primary treatment for patients with MASLD/MASH (97, 98). Building on this foundation, pharmacological strategies targeting specific inter-organ pathways and shared pathological mechanisms represent the next frontier in MASH management. A recently published, large-scale prospective cohort study reaffirms the significant benefits of adhering to a healthy lifestyle in the prevention of MASLD (99). If these patients do not respond to lifestyle changes, bariatric surgery is an option (100).
Regarding drug therapy, several groups of drugs aimed at treating MASH based on relevant mechanisms are in the clinical development stage (101–122). Notably, the promising drug classes under investigation are those that target the core inter-organ axes discussed in this review. For instance, FXR agonists primarily modulate the gut-liver axis by restoring bile acid homeostasis and reducing gut-derived inflammation (107, 123). Recent evidence further demonstrates that the FXR agonist INT-767 directly attenuates aberrant basement membrane production by hepatic stellate cells, providing a precise antifibrotic mechanism (124). FGF21 analogues and GLP-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) exhibit pleiotropic effects across multiple organs; the former improves systemic metabolic regulation and insulin sensitivity (125), while the latter engages the gut-brain-liver axis to control appetite, glycemia, and directly ameliorate hepatic steatosis and inflammation (126). For patients with MASH who have advanced to severe cirrhosis or liver failure, a liver transplant may be necessary (127). The corresponding treatment methods are briefly outlined in Table 2.
Table 2. Summary of possible interventions for MASLD/MASH and its further deteriorated forms.
The integration of these targeted therapies underscores a paradigm shift from organ-centric approaches to a systems-level view of MASH treatment. Indeed, it is rare for a single drug to comprehensively cure a disease; instead, the combination of multiple drugs targeting different pathways - such as simultaneously addressing metabolic dysregulation, gut barrier integrity, and systemic inflammation - is a promising avenue for future therapeutic development (15, 128). This includes both traditional combinations of distinct drugs and innovative single molecules with inherent multi-target capabilities. A notable example is pemvidutide, a peptide-based GLP-1/glucagon dual receptor agonist exhibiting balanced 1:1 agonist potency at both receptors. This unique profile enables a single molecule to simultaneously activate GLP-1 receptor-mediated metabolic effects and glucagon receptor-driven hepatic actions, representing an integrated pharmacological approach to multi-system disease modulation (129). This approach is supported by early clinical evidence; for instance, a recent network meta-analysis identified the combination of cilofexor (FXR agonist) and firsocostat (ACC inhibitor) as one of the most effective regimens for fibrosis improvement, providing proof-of-concept for synergistic multi-target strategies (130). Furthermore, such multi-targeting agents may themselves serve as foundational components for future combination regimens with other mechanism drugs (e.g., FXR agonists or PPAR agonists), creating even more comprehensive therapeutic strategies.
Additionally, the effectiveness and safety profiles of drugs can differ significantly among individuals, thus necessitating a thorough evaluation and continuous monitoring prior to initiating any treatment. Leveraging experiences from hepatocellular carcinoma treatment, addressing the complexity and heterogeneity of MASLD/MASH will require innovative clinical trial designs and new drug development strategies (131). Future research on combination therapies targeting multiple organ axes should focus on patient stratification and precision medicine.
5 Limitations of the current research and future prospects
At present, some progress has been made in the study of the pathological mechanism of the transformation of MASH into liver fibrosis, and the diagnosis and treatment are also discussed from the aspects of metabolism, inflammatory response, and HSC activation. However, at present, there are still some unknown points in the interpretation of this field.
First of all, the specific molecular mechanism underlying the transformation of MASH into liver fibrosis remains unclear, necessitating further studies to elucidate the key molecules and signaling pathways involved in this process. Future research should focus on the comprehensive analysis of multi-omics data to gain a thorough understanding of the pathological mechanisms of MASH, enabling early detection and assessment of the disease and thereby preventing or delaying its progression to liver fibrosis.
Secondly, there are still some limitations in the diagnosis and treatment of MASH. In terms of diagnosis, more sensitive and specific biomarkers need to be developed for early detection and assessment of MASH, in addition to the currently only recognized liver biopsy that reliably differentiates MASH from the aggressiveness of simple steatosis. In recent years, artificial intelligence (AI) has experienced rapid development. Notably, AI applications in liver disease have made significant strides in diagnosis and risk stratification, effectively distilling critical insights from intricate clinical data. Should AI genuinely integrate into clinical decision support systems in the future, it promises not only to conserve substantial human and material resources but also to elevate patient care to new heights (132–135). In terms of treatment, the current treatment of MASH still mainly relies on lifestyle intervention. Surgical treatment such as bariatric surgery is another method for the treatment of obesity in the United States and European countries, but it is not completely effective, and its clinical efficacy and safety need to be further studied to make it suitable for MASLD patients. In terms of drug therapy (100, 109). Due to the complex nature of MASH development and progression, involving oxidative stress, insulin resistance, apoptosis, lipid toxicity, inflammation, and fibrosis, most drug studies targeting various pathways are currently in the clinical trial stage. Looking to the future, given the multifaceted nature of MASH pathogenesis and the often suboptimal response to monotherapy, it may be necessary to explore combination medications and more refined individualized treatment regimens. Future research could adopt successful approaches from hepatocellular carcinoma studies by integrating proteomics, metabolomics, and other multi-omics data with Mendelian randomization methods (136), systematically identifying key molecules driving MASLD multi-organ complications and validating their causal relationships, thus providing a stronger target basis for developing new therapies.
In addition, the community should increase investment in the basic research of MASH, including the improvement of animal models and research methods, with the development of gene editing technology such as CRISPR-Cas9, researchers will be able to create more detailed disease models to simulate the development of MASH (137). This will provide a powerful tool for research to better simulate the condition of MASH in humans, so as to better study its pathological mechanisms and treatment strategies. At the same time, with the increase in the number of MASH patients worldwide, international cooperation will play a more important role in research design, resource sharing and promotion of treatment strategies, and international cooperation and communication should be strengthened to share research results and resources to promote the development of MASH research.
6 Conclusions
As an increasingly prevalent hepatic disorder, MASLD/MASH, have garnered escalating attention from medical professionals worldwide due to the intricate interplay of metabolic, genetic, immunological, and extra-hepatic factors underpinning their pathogenesis. Over the past decade, substantial advancements have been made in elucidating the natural history and foundational biology of MASLD/MASH; however, numerous challenges remain unaddressed, and public awareness is lagging. The urgent need for accurate identification, diagnosis, and appropriate management of at-risk and afflicted populations has become paramount. Promising therapeutic approaches and targets are currently under investigation, yet it remains unequivocal that healthy lifestyle modifications and weight management stand at the epicenter of MASLD prevention and control, given obesity’s pivotal role as the primary driver of this widespread liver ailment and its metabolic sequelae. In sum, future research and practice in MASLD must converge on deepened understanding, optimized diagnostic and therapeutic strategies, and intensified lifestyle interventions to effectively combat this global health challenge. Future research should prioritize the integration of multi-omics data and AI to delineate the specific molecular mediators of organ crosstalk, and should champion clinical trials testing combination therapies that simultaneously target multiple extrahepatic axes.
Author contributions
WB: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft. ZZ: Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant number 82102029); National High Level Hospital Clinical Research Funding (grant number LC2024A09); and Teaching Research Fund of Cancer Hospital of Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences (grant number E2024015).
Conflict of interest
The authors declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declare that no Generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Abbreviations
MASLD, metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease; NAFLD, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease; NASH, non-alcoholic steatohepatitis; MASH, metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis; GWAS, genome-wide association studies; HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma; HSC, hepatic stellate cell; ECM, extracellular matrix; LSEC, liver sinusoidal endothelial cell; BDNF, brain-derived neurotrophic factor; TJ, tight junction; FXR, Farnesoid X Receptor; 3-sucCA, 3-succinylcholic acid; CKD, chronic kidney disease; RAAS, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system; MR, mineralocorticoid receptor; IR, insulin resistance; SphK1, sphingosine kinase 1; ACE-Is, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors; ARBs, angiotensin receptor blockers; DAMPs, damage-associated molecular patterns; ROS, reactive oxygen species; TLR4, Toll-like receptor 4; AI, artificial intelligence
References
1. Powell EE, Wong VWS, and Rinella M. Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Lancet. (2021) 397:2212–24. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32511-3
2. Targher G, Byrne CD, and Tilg H. MASLD: a systemic metabolic disorder with cardiovascular and Malignant complications. Gut. (2024) 73:691–702. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2023-330595
3. Blesl A and Stadlbauer V. The gut-liver axis in cholestatic liver diseases. Nutrients. (2021) 13:1018. doi: 10.3390/nu13031018
4. Ma Y, Wang J, Xiao W, and Fan X. A review of MASLD-related hepatocellular carcinoma: progress in pathogenesis, early detection, and therapeutic interventions. Front Med. (2024) 11:1410668. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2024.1410668
5. Benedé-Ubieto R, Cubero FJ, and Nevzorova YA. Breaking the barriers: the role of gut homeostasis in Metabolic-Associated Steatotic Liver Disease (MASLD). Gut Microbes. (2024) 16:2331460. doi: 10.1080/19490976.2024.2331460
6. Bruneau A, Hundertmark J, Guillot A, and Tacke F. Molecular and cellular mediators of the gut-liver axis in the progression of liver diseases. Front Med. (2021) 8:725390. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2021.725390
7. Medina-Julio D, Ramírez-Mejía MM, Cordova-Gallardo J, Peniche-Luna E, Cantú-Brito C, and Mendez-Sanchez N. From liver to brain: how MAFLD/MASLD impacts cognitive function. Med Sci Monit. (2024) 30:e943417. doi: 10.12659/MSM.943417
8. Milosevic I, Vujovic A, Barac A, Djelic M, Korac M, Radovanovic Spurnic A, et al. Gut-liver axis, gut microbiota, and its modulation in the management of liver diseases: A review of the literature. IJMS. (2019) 20:395. doi: 10.3390/ijms20020395
9. Sanyal AJ, Van Natta ML, Clark J, Neuschwander-Tetri BA, Diehl A, Dasarathy S, et al. Prospective study of outcomes in adults with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. N Engl J Med. (2021) 385:1559–69. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2029349
10. Sheka AC, Adeyi O, Thompson J, Hameed B, Crawford PA, and Ikramuddin S. Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis: A review. JAMA. (2020) 323:1175. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.2298
11. Spahis S, Delvin E, Borys JM, and Levy E. Oxidative stress as a critical factor in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease pathogenesis. Antioxidants Redox Signaling. (2017) 26:519–41. doi: 10.1089/ars.2016.6776
12. Lee KC, Wu PS, and Lin HC. Pathogenesis and treatment of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis and its fibrosis. Clin Mol Hepatol. (2023) 29:77–98. doi: 10.3350/cmh.2022.0237
13. Schuster S, Cabrera D, Arrese M, and Feldstein AE. Triggering and resolution of inflammation in NASH. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. (2018) 15:349–64. doi: 10.1038/s41575-018-0009-6
14. Yahoo N, Dudek M, Knolle P, and Heikenwälder M. Role of immune responses in the development of NAFLD-associated liver cancer and prospects for therapeutic modulation. J Hepatology. (2023) 79:538–51. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2023.02.033
15. Friedman SL and Pinzani M. Hepatic fibrosis 2022: Unmet needs and a blueprint for the future. Hepatology. (2022) 75:473–88. doi: 10.1002/hep.32285
16. Schwabe RF, Tabas I, and Pajvani UB. Mechanisms of fibrosis development in nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. Gastroenterology. (2020) 158:1913–28. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.11.311
17. Friedman SL, Neuschwander-Tetri BA, Rinella M, and Sanyal AJ. Mechanisms of NAFLD development and therapeutic strategies. Nat Med. (2018) 24:908–22. doi: 10.1038/s41591-018-0104-9
18. McConnell MJ, Kostallari E, Ibrahim SH, and Iwakiri Y. The evolving role of liver sinusoidal endothelial cells in liver health and disease. Hepatology. (2023) 78:649–69. doi: 10.1097/HEP.0000000000000207
19. Wu Q, Sun Q, Zhang Q, Wang N, Lv W, and Han D. Extracellular matrix stiffness-induced mechanotransduction of capillarized liver sinusoidal endothelial cells. Pharm (Basel). (2024) 17:644. doi: 10.3390/ph17050644
20. Liu Y, Yu X, Wang Y, Wu J, Feng B, and Li M. The role of differentially expressed genes and immune cell infiltration in the progression of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) to hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC): a new exploration based on bioinformatics analysis. Nucleosides Nucleotides Nucleic Acids. (2024) 43:1415–30. doi: 10.1080/15257770.2024.2310044
21. Parola M and Pinzani M. Liver fibrosis in NAFLD/NASH: from pathophysiology towards diagnostic and therapeutic strategies. Mol Aspects Med. (2024) 95:101231. doi: 10.1016/j.mam.2023.101231
22. Wang X, Zhang L, and Dong B. Molecular mechanisms in MASLD/MASH-related HCC. Hepatology (Baltimore, Md.). (2025) 82:1303–24. doi: 10.1097/HEP.0000000000000786
23. Diehl AM and Day C. Cause, pathogenesis, and treatment of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. Engl J Med. (2017) 377:2063–72. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra1503519
24. Hammerich L and Tacke F. Hepatic inflammatory responses in liver fibrosis. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. (2023) 20:633–46. doi: 10.1038/s41575-023-00807-x
25. Yu Q, He R, Jiang H, Wu J, Xi Z, He K, et al. Association between metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease and cognitive impairment. J Clin Transl Hepatol. (2022) 000:000–0. doi: 10.14218/JCTH.2021.00490
26. Colognesi M, Gabbia D, and De Martin S. Depression and cognitive impairment-extrahepatic manifestations of NAFLD and NASH. Biomedicines. (2020) 8:229. doi: 10.3390/biomedicines8070229
27. Miao Y, Zhang B, Sun X, Ma X, Fang D, Zhang W, et al. The presence and severity of NAFLD are associated with cognitive impairment and hippocampal damage. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. (2023) 108:3239–49. doi: 10.1210/clinem/dgad352
28. Marjot T, Ray DW, Williams FR, Tomlinson JW, and Armstrong MJ. Sleep and liver disease: a bidirectional relationship. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. (2021) 6:850–63. doi: 10.1016/S2468-1253(21)00169-2
29. Nunes VS, da Silva Ferreira G, and Quintão ECR. Cholesterol metabolism in aging simultaneously altered in liver and nervous system. Aging (Albany NY). (2022) 14:1549–61. doi: 10.18632/aging.203880
30. Tilg H, Adolph TE, and Trauner M. Gut-liver axis: Pathophysiological concepts and clinical implications. Cell Metab. (2022) 34:1700–18. doi: 10.1016/j.cmet.2022.09.017
31. Wei D, Lin X, and Bresalier RS. Reframing cancer cachexia: the vagal brain-liver axis as a novel neuro-metabolic target. Signal Transduct Target Ther. (2025) 10:370. doi: 10.1038/s41392-025-02483-6
32. Ichimura-Shimizu M, Kojima M, Suzuki S, Miyata M, Osaki Y, Matsui K, et al. Brain-derived neurotrophic factor knock-out mice develop non-alcoholic steatohepatitis. J Pathol. (2023) 261:465–76. doi: 10.1002/path.6204
33. Ichimura-Shimizu M, Kurrey K, Miyata M, Dezawa T, Tsuneyama K, and Kojima M. Emerging insights into the role of BDNF on health and disease in periphery. Biomolecules. (2024) 14:444. doi: 10.3390/biom14040444
34. Suzuki T and Tanaka KF. Downregulation of bdnf expression in adult mice causes body weight gain. Neurochem Res. (2022) 47:2645–55. doi: 10.1007/s11064-021-03523-7
35. Liu Z, Xiao T, and Liu H. Leptin signaling and its central role in energy homeostasis. Front Neurosci. (2023) 17:1238528. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2023.1238528
36. Di Rosa MC, Zimbone S, Saab MW, and Tomasello MF. The pleiotropic potential of BDNF beyond neurons: implication for a healthy mind in a healthy body. Life (Basel). (2021) 11:1256. doi: 10.3390/life11111256
37. Fulgenzi G, Hong Z, Tomassoni-Ardori F, Barella LF, Becker J, Barrick C, et al. Novel metabolic role for BDNF in pancreatic β-cell insulin secretion. Nat Commun. (2020) 11:1950. doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-15833-5
38. Genzer Y, Chapnik N, and Froy O. Effect of brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) on hepatocyte metabolism. Int J Biochem Cell Biol. (2017) 88:69–74. doi: 10.1016/j.biocel.2017.05.008
39. Kimura K, Inaba Y, Watanabe H, Matsukawa T, Matsumoto M, and Inoue H. Nicotinic alpha-7 acetylcholine receptor deficiency exacerbates hepatic inflammation and fibrosis in a mouse model of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis. J Diabetes Investig. (2019) 10:659–66. doi: 10.1111/jdi.12964
40. Nishio T, Taura K, Iwaisako K, Koyama Y, Tanabe K, Yamamoto G, et al. Hepatic vagus nerve regulates Kupffer cell activation via α7 nicotinic acetylcholine receptor in nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. J Gastroenterol. (2017) 52:965–76. doi: 10.1007/s00535-016-1304-z
41. Sun TT, Liu XL, Yang GY, Zhang W, Tao L, Ma WT, et al. Neurotrophic factors stimulate the activation of hepatic stellate cells in liver fibrosis. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. (2022) 630:167–74. doi: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2022.09.025
42. Passino MA, Adams RA, Sikorski SL, and Akassoglou K. Regulation of hepatic stellate cell differentiation by the neurotrophin receptor p75NTR. Science. (2007) 315:1853–6. doi: 10.1126/science.1137603
43. Yang M, Cui W, Lv X, Xiong G, Sun C, Xuan H, et al. S100P is a ferroptosis suppressor to facilitate hepatocellular carcinoma development by rewiring lipid metabolism. Nat Commun. (2025) 16:509. doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-55785-8
44. Ye MP, Lu WL, Rao QF, Li MJ, Hong HQ, Yang XY, et al. Mitochondrial stress induces hepatic stellate cell activation in response to the ATF4/TRIB3 pathway stimulation. J Gastroenterol. (2023) 58:668–81. doi: 10.1007/s00535-023-01996-7
45. Köylü B, Sökmensüer C, Karçaaltıncaba M, and Keskin O. Predicting fibrosis stage in MASH: the role of total metabolic syndrome score and MMP-1. Med (Kaunas). (2025) 61:1102. doi: 10.3390/medicina61061102
46. Lin Q, Lei D, Zhong T, Zhang Y, Da Q, Chen X, et al. Inactivation of ERK1/2 in cancer-associated hepatic stellate cells suppresses cancer-stromal interaction by regulating extracellular matrix in fibrosis. Am J Cancer Res. (2024) 14:1015–32. doi: 10.62347/VPYE3817
47. Hassan NF, El-Ansary MR, El-Ansary AR, El-Saied MA, and Zaki OS. Unveiling the protective potential of mirabegron against thioacetamide-induced hepatic encephalopathy in rats: Insights into cAMP/PPAR-γ/p-ERK1/2/p S536 NF-κB p 65 and p-CREB/BDNF/TrkB in parallel with oxidative and apoptotic trajectories. Biochem Pharmacol. (2024) 229:116504. doi: 10.1016/j.bcp.2024.116504
48. Dhanda S, Gupta S, Halder A, Sunkaria A, and Sandhir R. Systemic inflammation without gliosis mediates cognitive deficits through impaired BDNF expression in bile duct ligation model of hepatic encephalopathy. Brain Behavior Immunity. (2018) 70:214–32. doi: 10.1016/j.bbi.2018.03.002
49. Cardoso Delgado T, Martín-Cuevas C, Sánchez Hidalgo AC, Gil Gómez A, Rejano Gordillo CM, Landa J, et al. Metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease alters brain function and behavior: Insights from liver-targeted siRNA therapy. Sci Adv. (2025) 11:eady9758. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.ady9758
50. Liu L, Yin M, Gao J, Yu C, Lin J, Wu A, et al. Intestinal barrier function in the pathogenesis of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. J Clin Transl Hepatol. (2022) 000:000–0. doi: 10.14218/JCTH.2022.00058
51. Rahman K, Desai C, Iyer SS, Thorn NE, Kumar P, Liu Y, et al. Loss of junctional adhesion molecule A promotes severe steatohepatitis in mice on a diet high in saturated fat, fructose, and cholesterol. Gastroenterology. (2016) 151:733–46. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2016.06.022
52. Niu B, Liu J, Zhou H, Chu W, Wu X, Zhou Y, et al. ACT001 alleviates MASLD through gut microbiota-bile acid-FXR axis in mice. Ann Med. (2025) 57:2580773. doi: 10.1080/07853890.2025.2580773
53. Cui Y, Wang Q, Chang R, Zhou X, and Xu C. Intestinal barrier function-non-alcoholic fatty liver disease interactions and possible role of gut microbiota. J Agric Food Chem. (2019) 67:2754–62. doi: 10.1021/acs.jafc.9b00080
54. Wang S, Martins R, Sullivan MC, Friedman ES, Misic AM, El-Fahmawi A, et al. Diet-induced remission in chronic enteropathy is associated with altered microbial community structure and synthesis of secondary bile acids. Microbiome. (2019) 7:126. doi: 10.1186/s40168-019-0740-4
55. Rapozo DCM, Bernardazzi C, and de Souza HSP. Diet and microbiota in inflammatory bowel disease: The gut in disharmony. World J Gastroenterology. (2017) 23:2124–40. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v23.i12.2124
56. Pellicciotta M, Rigoni R, Falcone EL, Holland SM, Villa A, and Cassani B. The microbiome and immunodeficiencies: Lessons from rare diseases. J Autoimmun. (2019) 98:132–48. doi: 10.1016/j.jaut.2019.01.008
57. Murao A, Jha A, Kato T, Shimizu J, Akama Y, Aziz M, et al. Gut-primed neutrophils activate Kupffer cells to promote hepatic injury in mouse sepsis. Nat Commun. (2025) 16:9657. doi: 10.1038/s41467-025-65572-8
58. Ruff WE, Greiling TM, and Kriegel MA. Host-microbiota interactions in immune-mediated diseases. Nat Rev Microbiol. (2020) 18:521–38. doi: 10.1038/s41579-020-0367-2
59. Mizrahi M, Shabat Y, Ben Ya’acov A, Lalazar G, Adar T, Wong V, et al. Alleviation of insulin resistance and liver damage by oral administration of Imm124-E is mediated by increased Tregs and associated with increased serum GLP-1 and adiponectin: results of a phase I/II clinical trial in NASH. J Inflammation Res. (2012) 5:141–50. doi: 10.2147/JIR.S35227
60. Nicoletti A, Ponziani FR, Biolato M, Valenza V, Marrone G, Sganga G, et al. Intestinal permeability in the pathogenesis of liver damage: From non-alcoholic fatty liver disease to liver transplantation. World J Gastroenterol. (2019) 25:4814–34. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v25.i33.4814
61. De Munck TJI, Xu P, Verwijs HJA, Masclee AAM, Jonkers D, Verbeek J, et al. Intestinal permeability in human nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Liver Int. (2020) 40:2906–16. doi: 10.1111/liv.14696
62. Fang J, Yu CH, Li XJ, Yao JM, Fang ZY, Yoon SH, et al. Gut dysbiosis in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: pathogenesis, diagnosis, and therapeutic implications. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. (2022) 12:997018. doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2022.997018
63. Zhang F, Lo EKK, Chen J, Wang K, Felicianna, Ismaiah MJ, et al. Probiotic mixture ameliorates a diet-induced MASLD/MASH murine model through the regulation of hepatic lipid metabolism and the gut microbiome. J Agric Food Chem. (2024) 72:8536–49. doi: 10.1021/acs.jafc.3c08910
64. Xue L, Deng Z, Luo W, He X, and Chen Y. Effect of fecal microbiota transplantation on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: A randomized clinical trial. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. (2022) 12:759306. doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2022.759306
65. Nie Q, Luo X, Wang K, Ding Y, Jia S, Zhao Q, et al. Gut symbionts alleviate MASH through a secondary bile acid biosynthetic pathway. Cell. (2024) 187:2717–34. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2024.03.034
66. Perino A, Demagny H, and Schoonjans K. A microbial-derived succinylated bile acid to safeguard liver health. Cell. (2024) 187:2687–9. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2024.04.020
67. Sun DQ, Targher G, Byrne CD, Wheeler DC, Wong VWS, Fan JG, et al. An international Delphi consensus statement on metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease and risk of chronic kidney disease. Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr. (2023) 12:386–403. doi: 10.21037/hbsn-22-421
68. Jung CY, Koh HB, Park KH, Joo YS, Kim HW, Ahn SH, et al. Metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease and risk of incident chronic kidney disease: A nationwide cohort study. Diabetes Metab. (2022) 48:101344. doi: 10.1016/j.diabet.2022.101344
69. Yang T, Yang B, Yin J, Hou C, and Wang Q. Targeting insulin resistance and liver fibrosis: CKD screening priorities in MASLD. Biomedicines. (2025) 13:842. doi: 10.3390/biomedicines13040842
70. Chen S, Pang J, Huang R, Xue H, and Chen X. Association of MAFLD with end-stage kidney disease: a prospective study of 337,783 UK Biobank participants. Hepatol Int. (2023) 17:595–605. doi: 10.1007/s12072-023-10486-0
71. Theofilis P, Vordoni A, and Kalaitzidis RG. Interplay between metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease and chronic kidney disease: Epidemiology, pathophysiologic mechanisms, and treatment considerations. World J Gastroenterol. (2022) 28:5691–706. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v28.i39.5691
72. Stenvinkel P, Chertow GM, Devarajan P, Levin A, Andreoli SP, Bangalore S, et al. Chronic inflammation in chronic kidney disease progression: role of nrf2. Kidney Int Rep. (2021) 6:1775–87. doi: 10.1016/j.ekir.2021.04.023
73. Capalbo O, Giuliani S, Ferrero-Fernández A, Casciato P, and Musso CG. Kidney-liver pathophysiological crosstalk: its characteristics and importance. Int Urol Nephrol. (2019) 51:2203–7. doi: 10.1007/s11255-019-02288-x
74. Rad NK, Heydari Z, Tamimi AH, Zahmatkesh E, Shpichka A, Barekat M, et al. Review on kidney-liver crosstalk: pathophysiology of their disorders. Cell J. (2024) 26:98–111. doi: 10.22074/cellj.2023.2007757.1376
75. Roderburg C, Krieg S, Krieg A, Demir M, Luedde T, Kostev K, et al. Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is associated with an increased incidence of chronic kidney disease (CKD). Eur J Med Res. (2023) 28:153. doi: 10.1186/s40001-023-01114-6
76. Cao Y, Deng Y, Wang J, Zhao H, Zhang J, and Xie W. The association between NAFLD and risk of chronic kidney disease: a cross-sectional study. Ther Adv Chronic Dis. (2021) 12:20406223211048649. doi: 10.1177/20406223211048649
77. Alqarni I, Bassiouni YA, Badr AM, and Ali RA. Telmisartan and/or chlorogenic acid attenuates fructose-induced non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in rats: Implications of cross-talk between angiotensin, the sphingosine kinase/sphingoine-1-phosphate pathway, and TLR4 receptors. Biochem Pharmacol. (2019) 164:252–62. doi: 10.1016/j.bcp.2019.04.018
78. Kim KM, Roh JH, Lee S, and Yoon JH. Clinical implications of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors for development and progression of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Sci Rep. (2021) 11:2884. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-81959-1
79. Igbekele AE, Jia G, Hill MA, Sowers JR, and Jia G. Mineralocorticoid receptor activation in vascular insulin resistance and dysfunction. Int J Mol Sci. (2022) 23:8954. doi: 10.3390/ijms23168954
80. Belden Z, Deiuliis JA, Dobre M, and Rajagopalan S. The role of the mineralocorticoid receptor in inflammation: focus on kidney and vasculature. Am J Nephrol. (2017) 46:298–314. doi: 10.1159/000480652
81. Yang M, Ma F, and Guan M. Role of steroid hormones in the pathogenesis of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Metabolites. (2021) 11:320. doi: 10.3390/metabo11050320
82. Chen Y, Chen X, Chen Q, and Yu C. Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and hypokalemia in primary aldosteronism among chinese population. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). (2021) 12:565714. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2021.565714
83. Lin X, Ullah MHE, Wu X, Xu F, Shan SK, Lei LM, et al. Cerebro-cardiovascular risk, target organ damage, and treatment outcomes in primary aldosteronism. Front Cardiovasc Med. (2021) 8:798364. doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2021.798364
84. Pizarro M, Solís N, Quintero P, Barrera F, Cabrera D, Rojas-de Santiago P, et al. Beneficial effects of mineralocorticoid receptor blockade in experimental non-alcoholic steatohepatitis. Liver Int. (2015) 35:2129–38. doi: 10.1111/liv.12794
85. Muñoz-Durango N, Arrese M, Hernández A, Jara E, Kalergis AM, and Cabrera D. A mineralocorticoid receptor deficiency in myeloid cells reduces liver steatosis by impairing activation of CD8+ T cells in a nonalcoholic steatohepatitis mouse model. Front Immunol. (2020) 11:563434. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2020.563434
86. Wang CH, Liu HM, Chang ZY, Huang TH, and Lee TY. Losartan prevents hepatic steatosis and macrophage polarization by inhibiting HIF-1α in a murine model of NAFLD. Int J Mol Sci. (2021) 22:7841. doi: 10.3390/ijms22157841
87. Orlic L, Mikolasevic I, Lukenda V, Anic K, Jelic I, and Racki S. Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and the renin-angiotensin system blockers in the patients with chronic kidney disease. Wien Klin Wochenschr. (2015) 127:355–62. doi: 10.1007/s00508-014-0661-y
88. Zhou L, Yi Y, Lin B, Qiu Z, Wang C, and Li Y. Glycyrrhizic acid mitigates hepatocyte steatosis and inflammation through ACE2 stabilization via dual modulation of AMPK activation and MDM2 inhibition. Eur J Pharmacol. (2025) :1002:177817. doi: 10.1016/j.ejphar.2025.177817
89. Chen WY, Zhang JH, Chen LL, Byrne CD, Targher G, Luo L, et al. Bioactive metabolites: A clue to the link between MASLD and CKD? Clin Mol Hepatol. (2025) 31:56–73. doi: 10.3350/cmh.2024.0782
90. Elshaer A, Chascsa DMH, and Lizaola-Mayo BC. Exploring varied treatment strategies for metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD). Life. (2024) 14:844. doi: 10.3390/life14070844
91. Meyer M, Schwärzler J, Jukic A, and Tilg H. Innate immunity and MASLD. Biomolecules. (2024) 14:476. doi: 10.3390/biom14040476
92. Pipitone RM, Lupo G, Zito R, Javed A, Petta S, Pennisi G, et al. The PD-1/PD-L1 axis in the biology of MASLD. IJMS. (2024) 25:3671. doi: 10.3390/ijms25073671
93. Li Y, Yang P, Ye J, Xu Q, Wu J, and Wang Y. Updated mechanisms of MASLD pathogenesis. Lipids Health Dis. (2024) 23:117. doi: 10.1186/s12944-024-02108-x
94. Zhang L, Shi Y, Liang B, and Li X. An overview of the cholesterol metabolism and its proinflammatory role in the development of MASLD. Hepatol Commun. (2024) 8:e0434. doi: 10.1097/HC9.0000000000000434
95. Sawada K, Chung H, Softic S, Moreno-Fernandez ME, and Divanovic S. The bidirectional immune crosstalk in metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease. Cell Metab. (2023) 35:1852–71. doi: 10.1016/j.cmet.2023.10.009
96. Shrestha S, Jeon JH, and Hong CW. Neutrophils in MASLD and MASH. BMB Rep. (2025) 58:116–23. doi: 10.5483/BMBRep.2024-0058
97. Wong VWS, Wong GLH, Chan RSM, Shu SST, Cheung BHK, Li LS, et al. Beneficial effects of lifestyle intervention in non-obese patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. J Hepatol. (2018) 69:1349–56. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2018.08.011
98. Risi R, Tozzi R, and Watanabe M. Beyond weight loss in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: the role of carbohydrate restriction. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. (2021) 24:349–53. doi: 10.1097/MCO.0000000000000762
99. Chang Q, Zhang Y, Zhang T, Liu Z, Cao L, Zhang Q, et al. Healthy lifestyle and the risk of metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease: A large prospective cohort study. Diabetes Metab J. (2024) 48:971–82. doi: 10.4093/dmj.2023.0133
100. Pratt JSA, Browne A, Browne NT, Bruzoni M, Cohen M, Desai A, et al. ASMBS pediatric metabolic and bariatric surgery guidelines, 2018. Surg Obes Relat Dis. (2018) 14:882–901. doi: 10.1016/j.soard.2018.03.019
101. Chalasani N, Younossi Z, Lavine JE, Charlton M, Cusi K, Rinella M, et al. The diagnosis and management of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: Practice guidance from the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. Hepatology. (2018) 67:328–57. doi: 10.1002/hep.29367
102. Harrison SA, Taub R, Neff GW, Lucas KJ, Labriola D, Moussa SE, et al. Resmetirom for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial. Nat Med. (2023) 29:2919–28. doi: 10.1038/s41591-023-02603-1
103. Safadi R, Braun M, Francis A, Milgrom Y, Massarwa M, Hakimian D, et al. Randomised clinical trial: A phase 2 double-blind study of namodenoson in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and steatohepatitis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. (2021) 54:1405–15. doi: 10.1111/apt.16664
104. Tanaka Y, Ikeda T, Ogawa H, and Kamisako T. Ezetimibe markedly reduces hepatic triglycerides and cholesterol in rats fed on fish oil by increasing the expression of cholesterol efflux transporters. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. (2020) 374:175–83. doi: 10.1124/jpet.120.265660
105. Harrison SA, Goodman Z, Jabbar A, Vemulapalli R, Younes ZH, Freilich B, et al. A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of emricasan in patients with NASH and F1-F3 fibrosis. J Hepatol. (2020) 72:816–27. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2019.11.024
106. Beysen C, Schroeder P, Wu E, Brevard J, Ribadeneira M, Lu W, et al. Inhibition of fatty acid synthase with FT-4101 safely reduces hepatic de novo lipogenesis and steatosis in obese subjects with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: Results from two early-phase randomized trials. Diabetes Obes Metab. (2021) 23:700–10. doi: 10.1111/dom.14272
107. Moon AN, Briand F, Breyner N, Song DK, Madsen MR, Kim H, et al. Improvement of NASH and liver fibrosis through modulation of the gut-liver axis by a novel intestinal FXR agonist. BioMed Pharmacother. (2024) 173:116331. doi: 10.1016/j.biopha.2024.116331
108. Loomba R, Sanyal AJ, Kowdley KV, Bhatt DL, Alkhouri N, Frias JP, et al. Randomized, controlled trial of the FGF21 analogue pegozafermin in NASH. N Engl J Med. (2023) 389:998–1008. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2304286
109. Rong L, Zou J, Ran W, Qi X, Chen Y, Cui H, et al. Advancements in the treatment of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). (2022) 13:1087260. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2022.1087260
110. Sumida Y and Yoneda M. Current and future pharmacological therapies for NAFLD/NASH. J Gastroenterol. (2018) 53:362–76. doi: 10.1007/s00535-017-1415-1
111. Hamouda AO, Abdel-Hamed AR, Abo-Elmatty DM, Khedr NF, and Ghattas MH. Pentoxifylline and its association with kaempferol improve NASH-associated manifestation in mice through anti-apoptotic, anti-necroptotic, antioxidant, and anti-inflammatory mechanisms. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. (2022) 26:8644–59. doi: 10.26355/eurrev_202212_30535
112. Ha KB, Lee ES, Park NW, Jo SH, Shim S, Kim DK, et al. Beneficial effects of a curcumin derivative and transforming growth factor-β Receptor I inhibitor combination on nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. Diabetes Metab J. (2023) 47:500–13. doi: 10.4093/dmj.2022.0110
113. Li F, Zhao Y, Cheng Z, Wang Y, Yue Y, Cheng X, et al. Restoration of sinusoid fenestrae followed by targeted nanoassembly delivery of an anti-fibrotic agent improves treatment efficacy in liver fibrosis. Adv Mater. (2023) 35:e2212206. doi: 10.1002/adma.202212206
114. Chalasani N, Abdelmalek MF, Garcia-Tsao G, Vuppalanchi R, Alkhouri N, Rinella M, et al. Effects of belapectin, an inhibitor of galectin-3, in patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis with cirrhosis and portal hypertension. Gastroenterology. (2020) 158:1334–1345.e5. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.11.296
115. van der Windt DJ, Sud V, Zhang H, Varley PR, Goswami J, Yazdani HO, et al. Neutrophil extracellular traps promote inflammation and development of hepatocellular carcinoma in nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. Hepatology. (2018) 68:1347–60. doi: 10.1002/hep.29914
116. Ye H, Ma S, Qiu Z, Huang S, Deng G, Li Y, et al. Poria cocos polysaccharides rescue pyroptosis-driven gut vascular barrier disruption in order to alleviates non-alcoholic steatohepatitis. J Ethnopharmacol. (2022) 296:115457. doi: 10.1016/j.jep.2022.115457
117. Kwan SY, Slayden AN, Coronado AR, Marquez RC, Chen H, Wei P, et al. Treatment strategies and mechanisms associated with the prevention of NASH-associated HCC by a toll-like receptor 4 inhibitor. Cancer Prev Res (Phila). (2023) 16:17–28. doi: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-22-0332
118. Gaudet D, Karwatowska-Prokopczuk E, Baum SJ, Hurh E, Kingsbury J, Bartlett VJ, et al. Vupanorsen, an N-acetyl galactosamine-conjugated antisense drug to ANGPTL3 mRNA, lowers triglycerides and atherogenic lipoproteins in patients with diabetes, hepatic steatosis, and hypertriglyceridaemia. Eur Heart J. (2020) 41:3936–45. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa689
119. Oduro PK, Zheng X, Wei J, Yang Y, Wang Y, Zhang H, et al. The cGAS-STING signaling in cardiovascular and metabolic diseases: Future novel target option for pharmacotherapy. Acta Pharm Sin B. (2022) 12:50–75. doi: 10.1016/j.apsb.2021.05.011
120. Wei L, Liu L, Bai M, Ning X, and Sun S. CircRNAs: versatile players and new targets in organ fibrosis. Cell Commun Signal. (2023) 21:90. doi: 10.1186/s12964-023-01051-1
121. Gao J, Cheng Y, Hao H, Yin Y, Xue J, Zhang Q, et al. Decitabine assists umbilical cord-derived mesenchymal stem cells in improving glucose homeostasis by modulating macrophage polarization in type 2 diabetic mice. Stem Cell Res Ther. (2019) 10:259. doi: 10.1186/s13287-019-1338-2
122. Harrison SA, Wong VWS, Okanoue T, Bzowej N, Vuppalanchi R, Younes Z, et al. Selonsertib for patients with bridging fibrosis or compensated cirrhosis due to NASH: Results from randomized phase III STELLAR trials. J Hepatol. (2020) 73:26–39. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2020.02.027
123. Mao Q, Lin B, Zhang W, Zhang Y, Zhang Y, Cao Q, et al. Understanding the role of ursodeoxycholic acid and gut microbiome in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: current evidence and perspectives. Front Pharmacol. (2024) 15:1371574. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2024.1371574
124. Ramachandran P, Brice M, Sutherland EF, Hoy AM, Papachristoforou E, Jia L, et al. Aberrant basement membrane production by HSCs in MASLD is attenuated by the bile acid analog INT-767. Hepatol Commun. (2024) 8:e0574. doi: 10.1097/HC9.0000000000000574
125. Boutari C, Triantafyllou A, Papalavrentios L, Goulis I, and Sinakos E. FGF21 analogues and MASLD: A summary of preclinical and clinical data. Curr Pharm Des. (2025). doi: 10.2174/0113816128374854250709050425
126. Wang Y, Zhou Y, Wang Z, Ni Y, Prud’homme GJ, and Wang Q. Efficacy of GLP-1-based therapies on metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease and metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. (2025) 110:2964–79. doi: 10.1210/clinem/dgaf336
127. Zeng J, Fan JG, and Francque SM. Therapeutic management of metabolic dysfunction associated steatotic liver disease. United Eur Gastroenterol J. (2024) 12:177–86. doi: 10.1002/ueg2.12525
128. Harrison SA, Allen AM, Dubourg J, Noureddin M, and Alkhouri N. Challenges and opportunities in NASH drug development. Nat Med. (2023) 29:562–73. doi: 10.1038/s41591-023-02242-6
129. Noureddin M, Harrison SA, Loomba R, Alkhouri N, Chalasani N, Sheikh MY, et al. Safety and efficacy of weekly pemvidutide versus placebo for metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (IMPACT): 24-week results from a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase 2b study. Lancet. (2025). doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(25)02114-2
130. Souza M, Al-Sharif L, Antunes VLJ, Huang DQ, and Loomba R. Comparison of pharmacological therapies in metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis for fibrosis regression and MASH resolution: Systematic review and network meta-analysis. Hepatology. (2025) 82:1523–33. doi: 10.1097/HEP.0000000000001254
131. Zhu W, Fan C, Zhao Y, Liu Y, Cheng Y, and Zhou W. Breaking bottlenecks: the future of hepatocellular carcinoma clinical trials and therapeutic targets. Hepatol Int. (2025) 19:888–902. doi: 10.1007/s12072-025-10799-2
132. Ratziu V, Francque S, Behling CA, Cejvanovic V, Cortez-Pinto H, Iyer JS, et al. Artificial intelligence scoring of liver biopsies in a phase II trial of semaglutide in nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. Hepatology. (2024) 80:173–85. doi: 10.1097/HEP.0000000000000723
133. Njei B, Al-Ajlouni YA, Lemos SY, Ugwendum D, Njei N, Al Ta’ani O, et al. AI-based models for risk prediction in MASLD: A systematic review. Dig Dis Sci. (2025). doi: 10.1007/s10620-025-09499-6
134. Hirooka M, Miyake T, Yano R, Nakamura Y, Okazaki Y, Shimamoto T, et al. Development of a neural network to detect hepatic steatosis in metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease. Gastro Hep Adv. (2025) 5:100765. doi: 10.1016/j.gastha.2025.100765
135. Dunn N, Verma N, and Dunn W. Artificial intelligence for predictive diagnostics, prognosis, and decision support in MASLD, hepatocellular carcinoma, and digital pathology. J Clin Exp Hepatol. (2025) 16:103184. doi: 10.1016/j.jceh.2025.103184
136. Zhu W, Fan C, Liu B, Qin J, Fan A, Yang Z, et al. Therapeutic targets for hepatocellular carcinoma identified using proteomics and Mendelian randomization. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. (2025) 40:282–93. doi: 10.1111/jgh.16785
Keywords: MASLD, MASH, liver-brain axis, gut-liver axis, liver-kidney axis, multisystem complications, metabolic inflammation, therapy
Citation: Bai W and Zhu Z (2025) Multiorgan crosstalk in MASLD/MASH: from hepatic pathogenesis to systemic complications. Front. Endocrinol. 16:1720780. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2025.1720780
Received: 08 October 2025; Accepted: 30 November 2025; Revised: 21 November 2025;
Published: 18 December 2025.
Edited by:
Christopher Gerner, University of Vienna, AustriaCopyright © 2025 Bai and Zhu. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Zheng Zhu, ZHJfemh1emhlbmdAc2luYS5jb20=