| Literature DB >> 21119028 |
David P Macfarlane1, Xiantong Zou, Ruth Andrew, Nicholas M Morton, Dawn E W Livingstone, Rebecca L Aucott, Moffat J Nyirenda, John P Iredale, Brian R Walker.
Abstract
The pathological mechanisms that distinguish simple steatosis from steatohepatitis (or NASH, with consequent risk of cirrhosis and hepatocellular cancer) remain incompletely defined. Whereas both a methionine- and choline-deficient diet (MCDD) and a choline-deficient diet (CDD) lead to hepatic triglyceride accumulation, MCDD alone is associated with hepatic insulin resistance and inflammation (steatohepatitis). We used metabolic tracer techniques, including stable isotope ([¹³C₄]palmitate) dilution and mass isotopomer distribution analysis (MIDA) of [¹³C₂]acetate, to define differences in intrahepatic fatty acid metabolism that could explain the contrasting effect of MCDD and CDD on NASH in C57Bl6 mice. Compared with control-supplemented (CS) diet, liver triglyceride pool sizes were similarly elevated in CDD and MCDD groups (24.37 ± 2.4, 45.94 ± 3.9, and 43.30 ± 3.5 μmol/liver for CS, CDD, and MCDD, respectively), but intrahepatic neutrophil infiltration and plasma alanine aminotransferase (31 ± 3, 48 ± 4, 231 ± 79 U/l, P < 0.05) were elevated only in MCDD mice. However, despite loss of peripheral fat in MCDD mice, neither the rate of appearance of palmitate (27.2 ± 3.5, 26.3 ± 2.3, and 28.3 ± 3.5 μmol·kg⁻¹·min⁻¹) nor the contribution of circulating fatty acids to the liver triglyceride pool differed between groups. Unlike CDD, MCDD had a defect in hepatic triglyceride export that was confirmed using intravenous tyloxapol (142 ± 21, 122 ± 15, and 80 ± 7 mg·kg⁻¹·h⁻¹, P < 0.05). Moreover, hepatic de novo lipogenesis was significantly elevated in the MCDD group only (1.4 ± 0.3, 2.3 ± 0.4, and 3.4 ± 0.4 μmol/day, P < 0.01). These findings suggest that important alterations in hepatic fatty acid metabolism may promote the development of steatohepatitis. Similar mechanisms may predispose to hepatocyte damage in human NASH.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2010 PMID: 21119028 PMCID: PMC3043621 DOI: 10.1152/ajpendo.00331.2010
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab ISSN: 0193-1849 Impact factor: 4.310
Composition of rodent diets
| CS | CDD | MCDD | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kcal/g | 4.3 | 4.3 | 4.3 |
| Kcal% | |||
| Protein (as | 15 | 15 | 15 |
| Carbohydrate | 55 | 55 | 55 |
| Fat | 30 | 30 | 30 |
| Choline bitartate, g/kg | 14.48 | 0 | 0 |
| 1.7 | 1.7 | 0 |
CS, control diet; CDD, choline-deficient diet; MCDD, methionine- and choline-deficient diet. Diets were purchased from Dyets (Bethlehem, PA), with the following manufacturers' reference codes: CS, 518574; CDD, 518753; MCDD, 518810. All diets contained 50 g/kg corn oil (source of polyunsaturated fat) and 100 g/kg Primex (hydrogenated vegetable oil) as lipid sources. Carbohydrate was composed of corn starch, dextrin, cellulose, and sucrose, with sucrose differing marginally between the groups (392, 406, and 408 g/kg for the CS, CDD, and MCDD, respectively).
Fig. 1.Effect of methionine ± choline deficiency on body weight. Data points represent means ± SE; n = 8–30/group depending on time point. Final weights were analyzed by 1-way ANOVA with Tukey's post hoc comparison test. CS, control diet; CDD, choline-deficient diet; MCDD, methionine- and choline-deficient diet. *P < 0.05; ***P < 0.001.
Effect of choline ± methionine deficiency on liver weights and TGs, adipose depot weights, and food intake
| CS | CDD | MCDD | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Liver weight, %body weight | 4.0 ± 0.1 | 4.7 ± 0.1 | 3.8 ± 0.1 |
| Liver TG pool, μmol/liver$ | 24.37 ± 2.4 | 45.94 ± 3.9 | 43.30 ± 3.5 |
| Adipose depot weights, %body wt | |||
| Subcutaneous$ | 1.5 ± 0.2 | 1.3 ± 0.1 | 0.7 ± 0.1 |
| Epididymal$ | 1.6 ± 0.1 | 1.4 ± 0.1 | 0.4 ± 0.0 |
| Mesenteric | 0.3 ± 0.1 | 0.4 ± 0.1 | 0.1 ± 0.0 |
| Food intake, g·kg body wt−1·day−1 | 127.9 ± 4.5 | 130.8 ± 2.8 | 104 ± 2.7 |
| Liver function tests | |||
| Bilirubin, μmol/l | 4.9 ± 0.8 | 4.5 ± 0.7 | 5.3 ± 0.6 |
| ALT, U/l | 31 ± 3 | 48 ± 4 | 231 ± 79 |
| AST, U/l | 303 ± 86 | 224 ± 22 | 507 ± 90 |
Data are means ± SE, analyzed by 1-way ANOVA with Tukey's post hoc tests where appropriate. TG, triglyceride; ALT, alanine aminotransferase; AST, aspartate aminotransferase.
P < 0.05,
P < 0.001 vs. CS;
P < 0.05,
P < 0.01, and
P < 0.001 vs. CDD. Data were collected in different experiments and combined here, hence the varying numbers; $n = 21–23/group,
n = 7–8/group. For all other variables, n = 28–30/group.
Fig. 2.Effects of methionine ± choline deficiency on liver inflammatory cell infiltration. Data are means ± SE for n = 10/group. Two weeks of MCDD but not CDD produced an increase in neutrophil staining. A: average cell counts of anti-GR1-positive staining cells per high-power fields; **P < 0.05. Exemplary GR1-positive staining cells in CS group (B), CDD (C), and MCDD (D). Original magnification, ×250. Arrows indicate immunopositive cells.
Effect of choline ± methionine deficiency on fatty acid flux measured by dilution of [13C4]palmitate tracer
| CS | CDD | MCDD | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ra palmitate, μmol·kg−1·min−1 | 27.16 ± 3.46 | 26.25 ± 2.27 | 28.34 ± 3.46 |
| Fractional contribution to liver TG pool, % | 34.03 ± 5.11 | 11.38 ± 1.95 | 14.56 ± 1.93 |
| Liver TG pool, μmol/liver | 23.98 ± 3.69 | 51.27 ± 6.15 | 40.52 ± 4.58 |
| Absolute contribution to liver TG pool, μmol/liver | 6.88 ± 1.12 | 5.10 ± 0.87 | 5.83 ± 0.93 |
| Fractional contribution to plasma TG pool, % | 39.55 ± 5.25 | 28.80 ± 4.30 | 23.77 ± 5.23 |
| Plasma TG pool size, μmol | 0.67 ± 0.05 | 0.67 ± 0.06 | 0.46 ± 0.3 |
| Absolute contribution to plasma TG pool, μmol | 0.26 ± 0.04 | 0.19 ± 0.04 | 0.11 ± 0.03 |
Data are means ± SE, analyzed by 1-way ANOVA with Tukey's post hoc tests where appropriate.
P < 0.05,
P < 0.01, and
P < 0.001 vs. CS;
P < 0.05 vs. CDD; n = 12–15/group.
Effect of choline ± methionine deficiency on hepatic de novo lipogenesis and newly synthesized hepatic fatty acid export
| CS | CDD | MCDD | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Liver | |||
| Acetyl CoA enrichment, % | 7.6 ± 0.6 | 8.9 ± 0.5 | 7.2 ± 0.3 |
| Liver TG pool, μmol/liver | 25.0 ± 2.3 | 38.2 ± 4.0 | 48.5 ± 5.0 |
| M + 2 enrichment | 0.104 ± 0.009 | 0.121 ± 0.008 | 0.132 ± 0.007 |
| M + 4 enrichment | 0.029 ± 0.003 | 0.041 ± 0.003 | 0.036 ± 0.003 |
| Fractional synthesis rate, %/day | 5.6 ± 0.7 | 5.9 ± 0.4 | 6.8 ± 0.3 |
| Absolute synthesis rate, μmol/day | 1.4 ± 0.3 | 2.3 ± 0.4 | 3.4 ± 0.4 |
| Plasma TG | |||
| Acetyl-CoA enrichment, % | 7.6 ± 0.5 | 8.9 ± 0.4 | 7.4 ± 0.4 |
| TG pool, μmol | 1.7 ± 0.3 | 1.5 ± 0.2 | 1.0 ± 0.1 |
| Fractional synthesis rate, %/day | 6.5 ± 0.5 | 6.2 ± 0.4 | 6.6 ± 0.7 |
| Absolute synthesis rate, μmol/day | 0.33 ± 0.05 | 0.27 ± 0.04 | 0.19 ± 0.03 |
Results are means ± SE, analyzed by 1-way ANOVA with Tukey's post hoc tests where appropriate. Absolute synthesis rates were calculated from mass isotopomer distribution analysis of TG-derived palmitate following dietary [13C2]acetate labeling. The absolute synthesis rate of plasma TGs represents the hepatic export of newly synthesized fatty acids.
P < 0.05,
P < 0.01 vs. CS; n = 8/group, except for plasma TG data, where n = 5–7/group.
Effect of choline ± methionine deficiency on mRNA levels in liver for genes involved in de novo lipogenesis
| Gene | Genbank Reference Sequence | CS | CDD | MCDD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FAS | 5.98 ± 2.47 | 30.64 ± 8.46 | 0.73 ± 0.16 | |
| ACC1 | 7.72 ± 1.10 | 2.14 ± 0.63 | 5.41 ± 1.02 | |
| SREBP-1c | 9.02 ± 2.22 | 5.21 ± 1.46 | 3.18 ± 0.88 |
Data are expressed as means ± SE and analyzed by 1-way ANOVA with Tukey's post hoc comparison test where appropriate; n = 5–8/group. Results are expressed relative to internal control genes. FAS, fatty acid synthase; ACC1, acetyl-CoA carboxylase; SREBP-1c; sterol regulatory element-binding protein-1c.
P < 0.05,
P < 0.01, and
P < 0.001 vs. CS;
P < 0.01 and
P < 0.01 vs. MCDD.
Fig. 3.Effect of methionine ± choline deficiency on plasma triglycerides following intravenous tyloxapol. Hepatic triglyceride export was reduced in the MCDD group only. Data are expressed as means ± SE. Rate of triglyceride export (142 ± 21 vs. 122 ± 15 vs. 80 ± 7 mg·kg−1·h−1 for CS, CDD, and MCDD, respectively) was calculated from the linear portion of the graphs using and analyzed by 1-way ANOVA with Tukey's post hoc comparison test where appropriate; n = 7–8/group. *P < 0.05 vs. CS.