| Literature DB >> 18197175 |
Francois-Pierre J Martin1, Yulan Wang, Norbert Sprenger, Ivan K S Yap, Torbjörn Lundstedt, Per Lek, Serge Rezzi, Ziad Ramadan, Peter van Bladeren, Laurent B Fay, Sunil Kochhar, John C Lindon, Elaine Holmes, Jeremy K Nicholson.
Abstract
The transgenomic metabolic effects of exposure to eitherEntities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2008 PMID: 18197175 PMCID: PMC2238715 DOI: 10.1038/msb4100190
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Mol Syst Biol ISSN: 1744-4292 Impact factor: 11.429
Microbial species counts in mouse feces at the end of the experiment
| Groups/log10 CFU | HBF ( | HBF+ | HBF+ |
|---|---|---|---|
| — | 8.5±0.2 | — | |
| — | — | 7.8±0.2 | |
| 9.2±0.3 | 9.4±0.3 | 9.8±0.5** | |
| 9.1±0.2 | 7.78±2.13 | 8.7±0.3* | |
| 8.2±0.6 | 5.6±1.9*** | 6.3±0.5*** | |
| 7.4±0.3 | 6.3±0.3*** | 6.6±0.5*** | |
| 4.8±0.4 | 4.9±1.2 | 4.0±0.5** | |
| 7.2±0.3 | 7.0±0.5 | 5.7±1.0*** | |
| 10.3±0.2 | 10.4±0.2 | 10.1±0.4 |
log10 CFU (colony-forming unit) given per gram of wet weight of feces. Data are presented as mean±s.d. Absence of specific bacterial strains in the gut microflora is indicated by “—”. The values for the HBF mice supplemented with probiotics were compared to HBF control mice, *, ** and *** indicate a significant difference at 95, 99 and 99.9% confidence levels, respectively.
Short-chain fatty acid content in the cecum from the different groups
| Amounts of SCFAs given in μmol per gram of dry feces for each group | Acetate | Propionate | Isobutyrate | Butyrate | Isovalerate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HBF ( | 77.6±17.6 | 22.3±4.3 | 0.9±0.2 | 3±0.6 | 2.1±0.6 |
| HBF+ | 52.3±23.6*** | 22.2±10.8 | 1.2±0.5*** | 1.5±0.8*** | 2.7±1.2** |
| HBF+ | 40.6±8*** | 20.3±2.8 | 0.8±0.2 | 2.1±0.4*** | 2.1±0.5 |
Data are presented in μmol per gram of dry feces and are presented as means±s.d. The amounts of SCFAs for the HBF mice supplemented with probiotics were compared to HBF control mice, ** and *** indicate a significant difference at 99 and 99.9% confidence levels, respectively.
Summary of influential metabolites for discriminating NMR spectra of liver, plasma, fecal extracts and urine
| Metabolites | Chemical shift and multiplicity | HBF controls | HBF+ | HBF+ |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Leu | 0.92(t) | 2.4±0.6 | 1.7±0.3*** | 1.9±0.5* |
| Ileu | 0.94 (t) | 0.8±0.1 | 0.6±0.05*** | 0.7±0.2 |
| Lactate | 1.32(d) | 38.4±5.8 | 46.2±8.2a | 39.2±9.7 |
| Succinate | 2.41(s) | 0.2±0.1 | 1.0±0.6** | 0.7±0.3* |
| MA | 2.61(s) | 0.1±0.06 | 0.04±0.002** | 0.08±0.05 |
| TMA | 2.91 (s) | 0.2±0.04 | 0.07±0.03*** | 0.2±0.09 |
| TMAO | 3.27(s) | 10.3±2.2 | 13.1±3.7 | 18.5±8.0** |
| Gln | 2.44(m) | 0.4±0.1 | 0.3±0.1* | 0.3±0.1 |
| Glycogen | 5.38–5.45 | 3.4±1.9 | 1.5±0.6* | 3.2±1.9 |
| Lipoproteins | 0.84 (m) | 13.7±1.8 | 10.1±0.9*** | 9.8±4.2** |
| Citrate | 2.65(d) | 1.4±0.3 | 0.9±0.4** | 1.1±0.2** |
| Choline | 3.2(s) | 11.6±2.6 | 16.2±5.7* | 20.5±3.8*** |
| GPC | 3.22(s) | 44.1±4.6 | 57.3±12.5** | 68.1±11.2*** |
| Glyceryls | 3.91(m) | 2.0±0.3 | 2.5±0.4** | 2.7±0.4** |
| Caprylate | 1.27(m) | 2.5±0.1 | 3.5±0.2*** | 2.4±0.1 |
| Lys | 3.00(m) | 3.2±0.8 | 5.0±0.3*** | 4.9±1.2** |
| Osides | 5.42(m) | 0.9±0.09 | 1.2±0.1*** | 1.4±0.1*** |
| Bile acids | 0.72(s) | 3.1±0.9 | 1.8±0.7** | 2.0±0.6* |
| Ethanol | 1.18(t) | 2.5±0.1 | 2.0±0.08*** | 1.9±0.09*** |
| Choline | 3.20(s) | 48.0±19.5 | 11.3±4.1*** | 20.3±10.9*** |
| NAM | 2.06(m) | 7.1±1.0 | 5.4±0.3*** | 5.5±0.3*** |
| Acetate | 1.91(s) | 58.7±34.2 | 27.0±9.2** | 32.9±12.9* |
| U1 | 3.71(s) | 9.2±0.5 | 7.3±0.3*** | 8.2±0.5*** |
| IAG | 7.55(d) | 0.1±0.03 | 0.6±0.2*** | 0.4±0.2** |
| PAG | 7.37(m) | 0.8±0.1 | 1.5±0.3*** | 1.2±0.4* |
| Tryptamine | 7.70(d) | 0.1±0.04 | 0.4±0.1*** | 0.2±0.1** |
| UGLp | 1.27(m) | 1.7±0.1 | 2.7±0.4*** | 1.7±0.2 |
| Glycero-metabolites | 4.04 (m) | 1.7±0.1 | 2.2±0.2*** | 1.9±0.2* |
| NAG | 2.04(s) | 3.5±0.2 | 4.3±0.2*** | 3.8±0.5 |
| Butyrate | 0.90(t) | 6.9±0.8 | 5.2±0.7** | 5.2±0.9** |
| α-keto-isocaproate | 0.94(d) | 13.8±4.6 | 6.1±2.3** | 7.9±2.1** |
| Propionate | 1.05(t) | 0.9±0.2 | 0.8±0.04* | 0.8±0.1 |
| 3-hydroxy-isovalerate | 1.24(s) | 3.0±0.4 | 2.1±0.4** | 2.6±0.2 |
| Citrate | 2.55(d) | 10.8±7.6 | 1.6±0.6** | 2.2±0.9* |
| Creatine | 3.92(s) | 5.7±2.1 | 4.5±1.5 | 3.5±0.3** |
| Citrulline | 1.88(m) | 3.8±0.5 | 3.3±0.4 | 3.0±0.4** |
O-PLS models were generated for comparing probiotics treated to HBF control mice using one predictive and two orthogonal components, RX value shows how much of the variation is explained, QY value represents the predictability of the models, and relates to its statistical validity. Data are presented as area normalized intensities (101 a.u.) of representative metabolite signals as means±s.d. The values for the HBF mice supplemented with probiotics were compared to HBF control mice, a, *, ** and *** indicate a significant difference at 90, 95, 99 and 99.9% confidence levels, respectively.
s, singlet; d, doublet; t, triplet; q, quartet; m, multiplet; dd, doublet of doublets. For metabolite abbreviations, refer to the key in Figure 1, MA: methylamine.
Figure 1O-PLS-DA coefficient plots derived from 1H MAS NMR CPMG spectra of liver (A, D), 1H NMR CPMG spectra of plasma (B, E), 1H NMR standard spectra of fecal extracts (C, F) and urine (G, H), indicating discrimination between HBF mice fed with probiotics (positive) and HBF control mice (negative). The color code corresponds to the correlation coefficients of the variables with the classes. BAs, Bile acids; DMA, dimethylamine; Glc, glucose; Gln, glutamine; GPC, glycerophosphorylcholine; IAG, indoleacetylglycine; Ileu, isoleucine; Leu, leucine; Lys, lysine; NAG, N-acetylated glycoproteins; NAM, N-acetylated metabolites; Osides, glycosides; PAG, phenylacetylglycine; TBAs, taurine conjugated to bile acids; TMA, trimethylamine; TMAO, trimethylamine-N-oxide; UGLp, unidentified glycolipids.
Bile acids composition in gut flushes for the different microbiota
| Microbiota/ Bile acids | HBF | HBF+ | HBF+ |
|---|---|---|---|
| CDCA | ND | 0.04±0.07 | 0.01±0.02 |
| UDCA | ND | 0.1±0.1 | ND |
| CA | 0.4±0.5 | 0.3±0.7 | 0.3±0.2 |
| ωMCA | ND | 0.02±0.07 | ND |
| αMCA | 0.3±0.2 | 0.3±0.6 | 0.2±0.2 |
| βMCA | 0.9±0.7 | 1.3±2.7 | 0.8±0.7 |
| GCA | ND | 0.1±0.1 | 0.1±.08 |
| TCDCA | 3.3±1 | 4±2.1 | 2.5±1.3 |
| TUDC A | 6.6±1.4 | 6.6±5.2 | 5.1±1.02 |
| TβMCA | 50±4.8 | 49.2±7.5 | 50.5±5.2 |
| TCA | 38±3.5 | 38±6.2 | 40.4±5 |
Relative composition in bile acids given in percentage of total bile acid content. Species not detected with UPLC-MS experiment are shown as ND. The key is given in UPLC-MS material and methods.
Figure 2O-PLS-DA coefficient plots derived from the bile acid composition obtained by UPLC-MS analysis of ileal flushes, which indicate discrimination between HBF control mice (negative) and HBF mice treated with probiotics (positive), (A) L. paracasei and (B) L. rhamnosus. The color code corresponds to the correlation coefficients of the variables. One predictive and one orthogonal component were calculated; the respective QY2 and RX2 are (76.4, 52.2%) and (50.3, 51.2%).
Figure 3Schematic overview of H-PCA modelling: (Gunnarsson ). In the sublevel, each block of data XB is modelled locally by a PCA model. Each block is summarized by one or more loading vectors pb and score vectors tp (‘super variables'), which can be combined to form a new data matrix than can then be modelled using PCA, which generates the ‘super scores' tT and the ‘super loadings' pT. All conventional PCA statistics and diagnostics are retained.
Figure 4H-PCA scores (A) and loadings (B) plots for the two first components derived from scores of separate PCA constructed separately for the metabolic data from each individual biological matrix from HBF mice (▪), HBF-L. paracasei mice (⧫) and HBF-L. rhamnosus mice (○). These PCA models explained 94% (bile acid, C), 70% (plasma, D), 80% (liver, E), 41% (urine, F) and 61% (feces, data not shown) of the total variation in the data, respectively. The systematic variation from each of the block/compartment is summarized by its score vectors denoted Pi (plasma PCs 1–4), Li (liver PCs 1–3), Ui (urine PCs 1–3), Bi (bile acid PCs 1–3) and Fi (fecal PCs 1–3), which can be combined to form a new data matrix than can then be modelled using PCA. The individual PCA loadings were color coded according to their contribution to the H-PCA model in red (principal component 1) and in blue (principal component 2). The model has been calculated from Pareto scaled data using two cross-validated PCs, R2X=60%. Ala, alanine; see Figure 1.
Figure 5Integration of bile acid and fecal flora correlations. The bipartite graphs were derived from correlations between fecal flora and bile acids in each group: HBF mice (A), HBF mice supplemented with L. paracasei (B) or L. rhamnosus (C). The cut-off value of 0.5 was applied to the absolute value of the coefficient ∣r∣ for displaying the correlations between fecal flora and bile acids. Bile acids and fecal bacteria correspond to blue ellipse nodes and green rectangle nodes, respectively. Edges are coded according to correlation value: positive and negative correlations are respectively displayed in blue and in red. aMA, α-muricholic acid; Ba, Bacteroides; Bb, B. breve; Bl, B. longum; bMA, β-muricholic acid; CA, cholic acid; CDCA, chenodeoxycholic acid; Cp, C. perfringens; Ec, E. coli; GCA, glycocholic acid; La, Lactobacillus probiotics; Sa, S. aureus; Se, S. epidermidis; TCA, taurocholic acid; TCDCA, taurochenodeoxycholic acid; TMCA, tauro-β-muricholic acid; TUDCA, tauroursocholic acid; UDCA, ursocholic acid. * and *** indicate a statistically significant correlation at 95 and 99.9% confidence levels, respectively.
Figure 6Gut-microbiota–mammalian cometabolism of methylamines and aromatic amino acids. DMG, dimethylglycine; IA, indoleacetate; MA, methylamine; PA, phenylacetate (see Figure 1).