| Literature DB >> 20371568 |
Jarrad M Scarlett1, Darren D Bowe, Xinxia Zhu, Ayesha K Batra, Wilmon F Grant, Daniel L Marks.
Abstract
The central melanocortin system plays a key role in the regulation of food intake and energy homeostasis. We investigated whether genetic or pharmacologic blockade of central melanocortin signaling attenuates cardiac cachexia in mice and rats with heart failure. Permanent ligation of the left coronary artery (myocardial infarction (MI)) or sham operation was performed in wild-type (WT) or melanocortin-4 receptor (MC4R) knockout mice. Eight weeks after surgery, WT-Sham mice had significant increases in lean body mass (LBM; P<0.05) and fat mass (P<0.05), whereas WT-MI did not gain significant amounts of LBM or fat mass. Resting basal metabolic rate (BMR) was significantly lower in WT-Sham mice compared to WT-MI mice (P<0.001). In contrast, both MC4-Sham and MC4-MI mice gained significant amounts of LBM (P<0.05) and fat mass (P<0.05) over the study period. There was no significant difference in the BMR between MC4-Sham and MC4-MI mice. In the second experiment, rats received aortic bands or sham operations, and after recovery received i.c.v. injections of either artificial cerebrospinal fluid (aCSF) or the melanocortin antagonist agouti-related protein (AGRP) for 2 weeks. Banded rats receiving AGRP gained significant amount of LBM (P<0.05) and fat mass (P<0.05) over the treatment period, whereas banded rats receiving aCSF did not gain significant amounts of LBM or fat mass. These results demonstrated that genetic and pharmacologic blockade of melanocortin signaling attenuated the metabolic manifestations of cardiac cachexia in murine and rat models of heart failure.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2010 PMID: 20371568 PMCID: PMC2887273 DOI: 10.1677/JOE-09-0397
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Endocrinol ISSN: 0022-0795 Impact factor: 4.286
Characterization of wild-type versus MC4RKO mice. Data are expressed as mean±s.e.m.
| Number | 19 | 15 | 17 | 11 |
| Body weight (g) | ||||
| Baseline | 30·82±0·78 | 30·44±0·92 | 43·02±1·20* | 42·75±1·55* |
| After treatment | 39·93±1·37‡ | 29·77±1·02 | 51·68±1·09*,‡ | 52·26±1·24*,‡ |
| Food intake (g/day) | ||||
| Baseline | 4·54±0·08 | 4·37±0·11 | 6·75±0·15* | 6·78±0·17* |
| Percentage of body weight | 14·81±0·29 | 14·47±0·52 | 15·91±0·67 | 15·99±0·65 |
| 8 weeks | 4·67±0·07 | 3·91±0·09†,‡ | 6·73±0·10* | 6·64±0·12* |
| Percentage of body weight | 11·98±0·48‡ | 12·84±0·28‡ | 13·09±0·34‡ | 12·77±0·40‡ |
| Heart (g) | 0·16±0·01 | 0·32±0·01† | 0·18±0·01 | 0·32±0·01† |
| HW:BW ratio (mg/g) | 4·13±0·19 | 10·9±0·57† | 3·53±0·11 | 6·20±0·19* |
| HW:LBM ratio (mg/g) | 6·39±0·17 | 13·7±0·54† | 5·90±0·21 | 10·4±0·35* |
| Lung (g) | 0·21±0·01 | 0·29±0·06† | 0·20±0·01 | 0·32±0·02* |
| Lung:BW ratio (mg/g) | 5·50±0·29 | 10·05±0·61† | 4·14±0·18 | 6·05±0·42* |
| Kidney (g) | 0·24±0·01 | 0·20±0·01† | 0·25±0·01* | 0·23±0·01* |
| Kidney:BW ratio (mg/g) | 6·10±0·28 | 6·75±0·23 | 4·81±0·16* | 4·49±0·25* |
| Liver (g) | 1·39±0·06 | 1·08±0·03 | 3·38±0·20* | 2·92±0·19* |
| Liver (% of body weight) | 3·51±0·14 | 3·63±0·12 | 6·51±0·34* | 5·58±0·31*,† |
| Lean body mass (g) | ||||
| Baseline | 22·58±0·26 | 22·96±0·39 | 27·06±0·46* | 26·95±0·78* |
| Percentage of body weight | 73·34±1·44 | 76·28±1·84 | 63·29±1·16* | 63·55±2·18* |
| After treatment | 25·14±0·45‡ | 22·83±0·41† | 30·95±0·52*,‡ | 30·70±0·57*,‡ |
| Percentage of body weight | 63·82±1·63‡ | 77·54±1·98† | 59·61±0·78‡ | 58·88±1·17* |
| Fat mass (g) | ||||
| Baseline | 8·27±0·58 | 7·35±0·56 | 16·30±0·82* | 16·37±1·08* |
| Percentage of body weight | 26·72±1·21 | 23·82±1·71 | 37·71±1·11* | 38·11±1·85* |
| After treatment | 14·56±0·99‡ | 8·11±0·98† | 20·76±0·68*,‡ | 21·81±0·99*,‡ |
| Percentage of body weight | 35·16±1·59‡ | 27·07±3·22† | 40·01±0·61 | 41·55±1·11* |
WT, wild-type mice; MC4, MC4RKO mice; Sham, sham-operated mice; MI, myocardial infarction. *P<0·05 versus respective WT group; †P<0·05 versus respective Sham group; ‡P<0·05 versus baseline.
Figure 1Survival to the end of the 8-week study period after myocardial infarction. WT-Sham, 19 of 21 survived; MC4-Sham, 17 of 20 survived; WT-MI, 14 of 34 survived; MC4-MI, 11 of 19 survived. *P<0·001 versus WT-Sham and MC4-Sham mice.
Figure 2MC4RKO mice resist cardiac cachexia and increase LBM accumulation after myocardial infarction. Data are mean±s.e.m. ***P<0·001 versus WT-MI.
Figure 3MC4RKO resist an increase in energy expenditure in response to CHF. Basal oxygen consumption during the light phase (0900–1700 h) is increased in WT-MI mice (n=15) compared with WT-Sham mice (n=19). Basal oxygen consumption is not increased in MC4-MI mice (n=8) compared with MC4-Sham mice (n=10). Data are mean±s.e.m. aP<0·001 versus WT-MI, bP<0·05 versus WT-Sham.
Characterization of sham versus banded rats. Data are expressed as mean±s.e.m.
| Number | 6 | 8 | 7 | 8 |
| Body weight (g) | ||||
| Baseline | 295·0±5·9 | 294·1±3·8 | 264·5±8·7* | 268·8±5·8* |
| After treatment | 331·3±5·1‡ | 367·5±12·0‡ | 272·8±10·2* | 343·3±5·9†,‡ |
| Food intake (g) | ||||
| Baseline | 26·12±0·53 | 24·87±0·86 | 18·85±1·32* | 20·61±0·89* |
| During treatment | 26·73±0·99 | 33·25±2·61†,‡ | 22·26±0·69 | 34·64±1·66†,‡ |
| Feed efficiency | 0·12±0·02 | 0·16±0·03 | 0·02±0·03* | 0·15±0·01† |
| Heart weight (g) | 0·84±0·02 | 0·87±0·03 | 1·43±0·02* | 1·46±0·08* |
| HW:BW ratio (mg/g) | 2·45±0·06 | 2·37±0·09 | 5·39±0·23* | 4·33±0·15*,† |
| HW:LBM ratio (mg/g) | 2·81±0·09 | 2·94±0·15 | 5·66±0·19* | 4·73±0·33*,† |
| Lung (g) | 1·21±0·05 | 1·20±0·06 | 2·09±0·34* | 2·05±0·24* |
| Lung:BW ratio (mg/g) | 3·64±0·12 | 3·30±0·24 | 7·83±1·39* | 6·02±0·73 |
| Kidney (g) | 1·32±0·04 | 1·28±0·04 | 1·04±0·03* | 1·23±0·07† |
| Kidney:BW ratio (mg/g) | 3·99±0·18 | 3·56±0·15 | 3·90±0·19 | 3·58±0·21 |
| Liver (g) | 12·15±0·50 | 11·72±0·53 | 9·07±0·47* | 12·48±0·78† |
| Liver (% of body weight) | 3·69±0·19 | 3·19±0·13 | 3·35±0·23 | 3·59±0·29 |
| Lean body mass (g) | ||||
| Baseline | 265·7±3·35 | 261·0±4·99 | 243·2±7·12* | 248·0±5·08 |
| Percentage of body weight | 88·43±1·41 | 87·75±1·13 | 87·44±2·17 | 87·79±1·05 |
| After treatment | 298·6±4·91‡ | 300·4±9·67‡ | 251·2±8·80* | 298·9±8·82†,‡ |
| Percentage of body weight | 89·58±0·61 | 83·70±1·80† | 90·95±0·70 | 86·11±1·89 |
| Fat mass (g) | ||||
| Baseline | 25·52±1·18 | 24·30±2·94 | 18·17±1·68 | 17·94±1·27 |
| Percentage of BW | 7·97±0·26 | 8·79±0·95 | 6·87±0·59 | 6·83±0·42 |
| After treatment | 26·91±1·13 | 58·95±7·72†,‡ | 18·46±2·50 | 44·04±3·61†,‡ |
| Percentage of BW | 8·37±0·26 | 16·91±1·69†,‡ | 7·06±0·98 | 12·78±1·41*,†,‡ |
Sham, sham-operated rats; Band, aortic-banded rats; aCSF, i.c.v. aCSF treatment; AGRP, i.c.v. AGRP treatment; BW, body weight. *P<0·05 versus respective sham group; †P<0·05 versus respective aCSF group; ‡P<0·05 versus baseline.
Figure 4Effect of AGRP versus aCSF administration on the accumulation of LBM in sham-operated and aortic-banded rats. Data are mean±s.e.m. *P<0·05 versus Band-aCSF; **P<0·01 versus Band-aCSF; ***P<0·001 versus Band-aCSF.