| Literature DB >> 21431910 |
Tim Vanmierlo1, Kris Rutten, Leonie C van Vark-van der Zee, Silvia Friedrichs, Vincent W Bloks, Arjan Blokland, Frans C Ramaekers, Eric Sijbrands, Harry Steinbusch, Jos Prickaerts, Folkert Kuipers, Dieter Lütjohann, Monique Mulder.
Abstract
Plant sterols such as sitosterol and campesterol are frequently applied as functional food in the prevention of atherosclerosis. Recently, it became clear that plasma derived plant sterols accumulate in murine brains. We questioned whether plant sterols in the brain are associated with alterations in brain cholesterol homeostasis and subsequently with brain functions. ATP binding cassette (Abc)g5-/- mice, a phytosterolemia model, were compared to Abcg5+/+ mice for serum and brain plant sterol accumulation and behavioral and cognitive performance. Serum and brain plant sterol concentrations were respectively 35-70-fold and 5-12-fold increased in Abcg5-/- mice (P<0.001). Plant sterol accumulation resulted in decreased levels of desmosterol (P<0.01) and 24(S)-hydroxycholesterol (P<0.01) in the hippocampus, the brain region important for learning and memory functions, and increased lanosterol levels (P<0.01) in the cortex. However, Abcg5-/- and Abcg5+/+ displayed no differences in memory functions or in anxiety and mood related behavior. The swimming speed of the Abcg5-/- mice was slightly higher compared to Abcg5+/+ mice (P<0.001). In conclusion, plant sterols in the brains of Abcg5-/- mice did have consequences for brain cholesterol metabolism, but did not lead to an overt phenotype of memory or anxiety related behavior. Thus, our data provide no contra-indication for nutritional intake of plant sterol enriched nutrition.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21431910 PMCID: PMC3134714 DOI: 10.1007/s11130-011-0219-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Plant Foods Hum Nutr ISSN: 0921-9668 Impact factor: 3.921
Sterol profiles in brain regions of Abcg5−/− and Abcg5+/+ mice on normal chow diet
| Brain | Abcg5 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HC | CTX | CB | ||
| Cholesterol (μg/mg) | +/+ | 71.5 (3.4) # | 61.3 (3.4) ### | 91.2 (3.6) |
| −/− | 66.8 (5.9) ## | 63.3 (4.2) ## | 89.0 (3.6) | |
| Sitosterol (ng/mg) | +/+ | 35.6 (6.2) *** ## | 32.2 (3.7) *** ## | 61.4 (7.4) *** |
| −/− | 422.9 (71.0) ## | 381.1 (44.3) ## | 772.7 (91.2) | |
| Campesterol (ng/mg) | +/+ | 71.3 (10.6) *** ## | 60.9 (7.4) *** ## | 143.6 (26.7) *** |
| −/− | 504.2 (82.1) ## | 465.9 (54.3) ## | 947.6 (109.0) | |
| Stigmasterol (ng/mg) | +/+ | 3.7 (0.7) *** ### | 4.2 (0.5) *** ## | 8.4 (0.9) *** |
| −/− | 25.5 (3.8) | 23.9 (2.1) | 34.4 (2.6) | |
| Lathosterol (ng/mg) | +/+ | 68.6 (3.3) | 70.0 (2.1) | 78.2 (5.8) |
| −/− | 83.1 (18.4) | 88.6 (9.0) | 87.7 (5.9) | |
| Desmosterol (ng/mg) | +/+ | 422.0 (14.6) ** §§§ | 277.9 (9.0) ### | 406.6 (30.2) |
| −/− | 305.8 (28.6) # | 312.1 (19.7) | 400.8 (25.4) | |
| Lanosterol (ng/mg) | +/+ | 13.0 (2.0) | 12.8 (0.6) ** | 17.8 (1.0) |
| −/− | 16.1 (2.8) | 17.1 (1.1) | 17.0 (2.2) | |
| 27-OHchol (ng/mg) | +/+ | 6.1 (2.0) § | 1.1 (0.2) | 2.7 (0.5) |
| −/− | 6.7 (1.3) §§§ ## | 1.0 (0.16) | 2.4 (0.2) | |
| 24-OHchol (ng/mg) | +/+ | 300.7 (20.0) ** § ### | 244.3 (11.4) ### | 56.6 (4.3) |
| −/− | 205.8 (16.5) § ### | 266.6 (8.5) ### | 48.3 (3.3) |
HC hippocampus, CTX cortex, and CB cerebellum. Abcg5+/+ (n=7) Abcg5+/+ (n=8), mean ± SEM.
* = Between group 2 sided unpaired Student´s t-test; # = ANOVA within group Bonferroni post hoc: HC/CTX vs CB; § = ANOVA within group Bonferroni post hoc: HC vs CTX. *,§,# = P < 0.05; **,§§,## = P < 0.01; ***,§§§,### = P < 0.001
Fig. 1The performance of Abcg5−/− compared to Abcg5+/+ mice in the ORT. The Abcg5 genotype had no influence on object memory performance in an ORT with a 1 h delay between Tr1 and Tr2. Animals that did not reach the minimum of 5 s exploration in ORT in either Tr1 or Tr2 were excluded from d2 analysis (exclusion numbers: Abcg5−/− (n = 1) and Abcg5+/+ (n = 1)) (Sik et al. 2003). Extreme values were excluded by means of Dixon’s principles of exclusion of extreme values (exclusion numbers: Abcg5−/− (n = 0) and Abcg5+/+ (n = 1; d2 = 0.60)). No differences in d2 values could be detected between Abcg5−/− (n = 7) and Abcg5+/+ (n = 7) (a). T1(s) and T2(s) exploration times in respectively Tr1 and Tr2 were not different between Abcg5−/− (n = 8) and Abcg5+/+ (n = 9) (data not shown). Values are displayed as mean +/− SEM
Fig. 2Spatial learning and memory of Abcg5−/− compared to Abcg5+/+ mice in the MWEM. Spatial memory performance did not differ between Abcg5+/+ and Abcg5−/− mice in the MWEM. Acquisition times (a) and distance moved were not different between the Abcg5+/+ (n = 9) and Abcg5−/− (n = 8). Abcg5−/− mice swam significantly faster than the Abcg5+/+ mice (b). In a probe trial without platform, all mice spent significantly more time searching in the target zone and no differences were found between Abcg5+/+ and Abcg5−/− mice (c). Using software the pool was divided into 4 virtual quadrants and a target zone. Values are displayed as mean +/− SEM, *=P < 0.05
Fig. 3Behavior of the Abcg5−/− and the Abcg5+/+ mice in the EZM and TST. Mice were allowed to explore the EZM for 5 min. The time in zone in the open zone (OZ), the closed parts (CZ), the border-in (BI), the border-out (BO) (indicated in (c)) as well as the latency to enter the CZ (latency) did not differ between Abcg5+/+ and Abcg5−/− mice in the EZM (a). The frequency of entrance in CZ, OZ, BO and BI were not significantly different either (b). Immobility times in the TST are displayed as mean +/− SEM