| Literature DB >> 19930639 |
Eliete J B Bighetti1, Patrícia R Patrício, Andrea C Casquero, Jairo A Berti, Helena C F Oliveira.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: CETP is a plasma protein that modulates atherosclerosis risk through its HDL-cholesterol reducing action. The aim of this work was to examine the effect of the PPARalpha agonist, ciprofibrate, on the CETP gene expression, in the presence and absence of apolipoprotein (apo) CIII induced hypertriglyceridemia, and its impact on the HDL metabolism.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2009 PMID: 19930639 PMCID: PMC2784759 DOI: 10.1186/1476-511X-8-50
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Lipids Health Dis ISSN: 1476-511X Impact factor: 3.876
Effect of ciprofibrate on the fasting plasma levels of lipids and glucose.
| Mice groups | Triglycerides | Cholesterol | Free Fatty Acids | Glucose | Insulin | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CIII | control | 429 ± 134 (12) | 124 ± 32 (12) | 2.9 ± 0.5 (7) | 70 ± 15 (6) | 0.7 ± 0.2 (6) |
| treated | 288 ± 140 (8)a | 102 ± 39 (10) | 2.2 ± 0.8 (10) | 103 ± 24 (6)a | 0.6 ± 0.2 (6) | |
| CIII/CETP | control | 320 ± 141 (10) | 100 ± 23 (10) | 3.5 ± 0.8 (10) | 82 ± 23 (10) | 0.7 ± 0.2 (9) |
| treated | 226 ± 142 (9) | 92 ± 20 (8) | 2.4 ± 0.8 (8) | 91 ± 20 (8)a | 0.6 ± 0.3 (6) | |
| CETP | control | 86 ± 37 (10) | 79 ± 27 (11) | 1.7 ± 0.5 (12) | 81 ± 27 (11) | 0.6 ± 0.2 (8) |
| treated | 49 ± 7 (9)b | 78 ± 23 (11) | 0.9 ± 0.3 (10)c | 91 ± 23 (11) | 0.5 ± 0.2 (12) | |
| non-Tg | control | 93 ± 38 (10) | 74 ± 32 (10) | 1.6 ± 0.6 (13) | 69 ± 32 (10) | 0.4 ± 0.2 (6) |
| treated | 56 ± 12 (9)b | 93 ± 25 (10) | 1.3 ± 0.4 (8) | 99 ± 27 (10)a | 0.6 ± 0.2 (6) | |
Normolipidemic (non-transgenic and CETP transgenic) and hypertriglyceridemic (CIII and CIII/CETP transgenic) mice were treated with ciprofibrate or vehicle (control) during 3 weeks. Mean ± SD (n). a p < 0.05; b p < 0.01; c p < 0.001 vs. control.
Variation of cholesterol distribution in plasma lipoproteins after ciprofibrate treatment.
| mice groups | VLDL | LDL | HDL | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CIII | control | 30.6 ± 6.0 (24.6) | 16.8 ± 1.0 (13.6) | 76.6 ± 6.0 (61.8) | 0.6 |
| treated | 47.1 ± 2.4 (46.2)a | 20.4 ± 6.0 (20.0) | 34.4 ± 9.5 (33.7)a | 2.0 | |
| CIII/CETP | control | 20.8 ± 5.0 (20,8) | 26.2 ± 8.0 (26.2) | 52.9 ± 10.1 (52.9) | 0.9 |
| treated | 53.3 ± 8.4 (57.9)a | 9.3 ± 2.0 (10.1)b | 29.3 ± 8.0 (32.0)a | 2.1 | |
| CETP | control | 1.7 ± 0.2 (2.2) | 12.8 ± 2.1 (16.2) | 64.5 ± 4.3 (81.6) | 0.2 |
| treated | 1,8 ± 0,1(2.3) | 8.9 ± 0.4 (11.5)a | 67.3 ± 4.8 (86.2) | 0.2 | |
| non-Tg | control | 3.6 ± 0.8 (4.9) | 6.5 ± 2.8 (8.8) | 63.8 ± 6.2 (86.3) | 0.2 |
| treated | 3.3 ± 0.4 (3.6) | 16.7 ± 2.2 (18.0)a | 72.9 ± 5.0 (78.4)a | 0.3 | |
Normolipidemic (non-transgenic and CETP transgenic) and hypertriglyceridemic (CIII and CIII/CETP transgenic) mice were treated with ciprofibrate or vehicle (control) during 3 weeks. Mean ± SD, n = 6. Data were calculated as the area under VLDL, LDL and HDL peaks of the FPLC profile. Relative cholesterol distribution (%) is given in parenthesis. Mann Whitney test for treated vs control: a p < 0.05, b p < 0.005.
Effect of ciprofibrate treatment on the lipoprotein lipase (LPL) and hepatic lipase (LH) plasma activities.
| Mice groups | LPL | LH | |
|---|---|---|---|
| CIII | control | 6231 ± 279 (5) | 2732 ± 2981 (5) |
| treated | 11990 ± 610 (5)c | 3829 ± 1595 (5) | |
| CIII/CETP | control | 7188 ± 1244 (5) | 3018 ± 550 (5) |
| treated | 7620 ± 1993 (6) | 3835 ± 611 (5) | |
| CETP | control | 3906 ± 2099 (7) | 2863 ± 951 (5) |
| treated | 8378 ± 1146 (6)b | 2079 ± 328 (6)a | |
| non-Tg | control | 6724 ± 1126 (5) | 3249 ± 806 (7) |
| treated | 8957 ± 2984 (5)a | 2706 ± 994 (5)a | |
Normolipidemic (non-transgenic and CETP transgenic) and hypertriglyceridemic (CIII and CIII/CETP transgenic) mice were treated with ciprofibrate or vehicle (control) during 3 weeks. Mean ± SD (n). a p < 0.05; b p < 0.01; c p < 0.001 vs. control.
Figure 1Ciprofibrate increases CETP plasma levels and liver mRNA. Plasma CETP levels was measured as cholesteryl ester (CE) transfer rates from exogenous labeled HDL to V+LDL acceptors (A). Panel B shows the relative hepatic CETP mRNA levels. Dark and open bars correspond to ciprofibrate treated and control CETP expressing mice, respectively. Mean ± SE, n = 7-10. Student t test: *P < 0.05; **p < 0.005.
Figure 2Ciprofibrate treatment delays plasma removal of . Plasma kinetic of 3HCet labeled HDL injected intraperitoneally into ciprofibrate treated and control CETP transgenic mice was followed through 6 hours. Each point represents the average of radioactivity in plasma from 6 mice per group. The area under the radioactivity versus time curve was 23% larger for the treated than for control CETP mice (704 ± 39 vs. 572 ± 55 × 103 dpm.h, respectively, p < 0.05).
Ciprofibrate treatment increases LDL- and decreases HDL- cholesterol plasma removal. Relative 3H-cholesteryl ether distribution (%) in plasma lipoproteins six hours after the injection of 3H-HDL into ciprofibrate treated or control CETP transgenic mice.
| Groups | VLDL | LDL | HDL |
|---|---|---|---|
| control | 6.4 ± 1.8 | 18.3 ± 3.9 | 75.2 ± 4.6 |
| treated | 5.2 ± 1.7 | 7.9 ± 1.8b | 86.9 ± 6.4a |
Mean ± SD. Plasma samples were fractionated by FPLC. Treated vs. control a p < 0.05; b p < 0.005.
Figure 3Diagram showing increased indirect reverse cholesterol transport steps as a response to ciprofibrate treatment. Changes in the steps 3, 4 and 5 were verified in the present work, and other steps were previously described for different fibrates and animal species, as follow: Step 1: Chinetti G, et al. Nat Med. 2001;7:53-58; Step 2: Staels et al., 1992 and Bouly et al [ref [23,47]]; Step 4: Berger & Moller, Annu Rev Med 2002;53:409-35; Step 5: Staels et al., 1992 [ref [47]]; Step 6: Mardones et al., 2003 [ref [51]]; Step 7: Staels et al., 1998 [ref [19]]. ABCA1: ATP-binding cassette transporter-A1; LCAT: lecithin cholesterol acyl transferase; LDLr: LDL receptor; LRP: LDL receptor related protein; SRB1:Scavenger receptor class B type I.