1. Background
2. Objectives
3. Methods
3.1. High-Fat Diet Formulation
3.2. ADSC Isolation and Culture
3.3. ADSC Characterization and Differentiation
3.4. LPS Priming of ADSCs
3.5. Exosome Isolation and Characterization
3.6. Animal Model and Study Design
3.7. Biochemical and Histological Assessment
3.8. Gene Expression Analysis by qRT-PCR
3.9. Western Blotting
3.10. Data Analysis
4. Results
4.1. ADSC Phenotype Confirmation
Characterization of adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells (ADSCs). (A) Flow cytometric analysis demonstrated positive expression of CD44 and CD105, while CD34 and CD45 were not detected. (B) Successful adipogenic differentiation was evidenced by Oil Red O staining after 21 days of induction. (C) Osteogenic differentiation was confirmed through Alizarin Red staining, highlighting calcium mineral deposition.
4.2. Characterization of Isolated Exosomes
Characterization of ADSC-derived exosomes. (A) Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) revealed the typical spherical morphology of isolated exosomes. (B) Western blot analysis confirmed the expression of the exosomal markers CD9 and CD81. (C) Dynamic light scattering (DLS) analysis demonstrated that the majority of isolated vesicles had a mean particle diameter of approximately 74 nm.
4.3. Effects of Treatments on Body and Liver Parameters
Impact of treatments on body weight, liver function, and histology in HFD-induced NASH. (A–C) Body weight, liver weight, and hepatic triglyceride levels after HFD and treatments with SARO, EXO, or LPS-EXO. Data are mean ± SD (n = 8). Statistical significance: ** P < 0.001, *** P < 0.0001 vs. control; # P < 0.05, ## P < 0.01, ### P < 0.001 vs. HFD. (D) Representative H&E-stained liver sections (×100) showing histological changes in each group.
4.4. Impact of Treatments on Liver Function and Lipid Parameters
Serum liver enzymes and lipid levels after treatments in HFD-induced NASH. Data are mean ± SD (n = 7). Statistical significance: * P < 0.01, ** P < 0.001, *** P < 0.0001 vs. control; # P < 0.05, ## P < 0.01, ### P < 0.001 vs. HFD. Abbreviations: CON, control; HFD, high-fat diet; SARO, saroglitazar; EXO, MSC-derived exosomes; LPS-EXO, LPS-primed MSC exosomes.
4.5. Hepatic Lipid Gene Modulation
Hepatic mRNA levels of genes involved in lipid metabolism. Fold changes relative to control are shown as mean ± SD. Panels: (A) SREBP-1c, (B) FAS, (C) ACC, (D) PPAR-γ, (E) PPAR-α, (F) CPT-1α. Statistical significance: * P < 0.01, ** P < 0.001, *** P < 0.0001 vs. control; # P < 0.05, ## P < 0.01, ### P < 0.001 vs. HFD.
4.6. Modulation of Hepatic Inflammatory Genes
Effects of treatments on hepatic inflammatory gene expression. mRNA levels in liver samples were quantified by qPCR, normalized to GAPDH, and expressed as fold change relative to control (mean ± SD). Panels show: (A) IL-1β, (B) IL-6, (C) TNF-α, (D) TGF-β. Statistical analysis: * P < 0.01, ** P < 0.001, *** P < 0.0001 vs. control; # P < 0.05, ## P < 0.01, ### P < 0.001 vs. HFD.
4.7. Effects of Treatments on Hepatic Fibrosis Markers
Effects of different treatments on hepatic fibrosis-related markers in HFD-induced NASH. Relative mRNA expression levels of COL1A1 (A), COL3A1 (B), and α-SMA (C) were quantified by qRT-PCR. HFD markedly increased the expression of fibrogenic genes, whereas treatment with saroglitazar (SARO), MSC-derived exosomes (EXO), and LPS-primed MSC-derived exosomes (LPS-EXO) significantly attenuated their expression. Gene expression levels were calculated using the 2−ΔΔCt method. Data are presented as mean ± SEM, *** P < 0.001, and **** P < 0.0001 versus the control group; # P < 0.05, ## P < 0.01, and ### P < 0.001 versus the HF group. (D) Representative Masson’s trichrome–stained liver sections (100× magnification) showing collagen deposition and fibrotic changes in different experimental groups.
4.8. Western Blot Assessment of p-AMPK and p-ACC
Liver AMPK and ACC phosphorylation after treatments. Phosphorylation levels were assessed by Western blot and normalized to GAPDH. Panels: (A) representative blots, (B) p-AMPK quantification, (C) p-ACC quantification. Data are mean ± SD. Significance: * P < 0.01, **** P < 0.0001 vs. control; ## P < 0.01, ### P < 0.001, #### P < 0.0001 vs. HFD.







