| Literature DB >> 23399773 |
A Khalyfa1, A Carreras, F Hakim, J M Cunningham, Y Wang, D Gozal.
Abstract
AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Gestational exposures such as dietary changes can alter offspring phenotype through epigenetic modifications and promote increased risk for specific diseases, such as metabolic syndrome. We hypothesized that high-fat diet (HFD) during late gestation would lead increased risk for insulin resistance and hyperlipidemia via associated epigenetic alterations in tissue adipocytokine genes.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23399773 PMCID: PMC3701742 DOI: 10.1038/ijo.2013.12
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Obes (Lond) ISSN: 0307-0565 Impact factor: 5.095
Figure 1Top Panels: Body weight evolution in HFDO and LFDO female and male mice from birth till 20 weeks of age (n=36 per experimental group). Differences between HFDO and LFDO reached statistical significance after week 6-7 of age in males, and week 8 in females. (* p<0.001).
Mid Panels: Food intake in male and female HFDO and LFDO mice. (HFDO vs. LFDO, p<0.0001)
Lower Panels: Food intake expressed as Kcal/week/g body weight in male and female HFDO and LFDO mice. (HFDO vs. LFDO, p<0.0001)
Mass of subcutaneous and visceral adipose tissues at 20 weeks of age in the offspring from pregnant mice fed with low fat diet or high fat diet during late gestation.
| Group | Average Body weight (g) | Subcutaneous (g) | P-value | Visceral (g) | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 20.33 ± 0.73 | 0.21 ± 0.02 | <0.002 | 0.24 ± 0.031 | <0.001 |
|
| 29.13 ± 1.46 | 0.63 ± 0.09 | 0.81 ± 0.18 | ||
|
| 25.82 ± 0.43 | 0.26 ± 0.01 | <0.002 | 0.44 ± 0.03 | <0.0001 |
|
| 36.83 ± 1.63 | 1.1 ± 0.25 | 2.28 ± 0.35 |
n=12/group
Figure 2Plasma glucose concentrations over 2h during the intraperitoneal glucose tolerance test (2mg glucose/g body weight) (Panel A) and intraperitoneal insulin tolerance test (0.25units/kg body weight) (Panel B) following fasting for 3h in HFDO and LFDO mice. HOMA-IR for HFDO and LFDO female and male mice are also shown (Panel Ca). Dynamic slopes for GTT (Panel Cb) and for ITT (Panel Cc) are shown for HFDO and LFDO mice. Slope A was calculated using the glucose levels measured at times 0-15min after glucose injection in GTT, while Slope B was computed between times 15-120min after glucose injection during GTT. In contrast, Slope A was measured between times 4-60min after insulin injection. Slopes results are mean ± SE (n=12 per group); * p<0.001 ANOVA; ** p<0.01 ANOVA.
Serum lipid profiles and plasma adipocytokine concentrations in 20week-old offspring from pregnant mice fed with low fat diet (LFDO) or high fat diet (HFDO) during late gestation and lactation period.
| Metabolic parameters | Females | P value | Males | P value | Diet × Gender effect P value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LFDO (n=12) | HFDO (n=12) | LFDO (n=13) | HFDO (n=12) | ||||
|
| 78.05 ± 1.48 | 112.95 ± 1.23 | <0.01 | 81.31 ± 1.83 | 119.11 ±0.04 | <0.01 | NS |
|
| 99.17± 3.32 | 127.34± 1.25 | <0.01 | 86.91 ± 3.59 | 133.09± 2.56 | <0.01 | NS |
|
| 78.94 ± 1.87 | 69.51 ± 1.44 | <0.05 | 88.14 ± 2.07 | 82.23 ± 2.69 | <0.05 | NS |
|
| 58.94 ± 2.22 | 83.46 ± 1.62 | <0.01 | 66.57 ± 2.2 | 77.54 ± 2.83 | <0.01 | NS |
|
| 0.59 ± 0.03 | 0.81 ± 0.07 | <0.01 | 0.48 ± 0.02 | 0.75 ± 0.04 | <0.01 | NS |
|
| 155.11 ± 5.26 | 159.43 ± 20.59 | NS | 187.12 ± 9.25 | 231.58 ± 23.69 | <0.01 | NS |
|
| 77.82 ± 2.85 | 118.06 ± 9.29 | <0.01 | 95.56 ± 4.95 | 192.41 ± 30.12 | <0.01 | <0.05 |
|
| 3.96 ± 0.38 | 6.7 ± 0.62 | <0.01 | 6.2 ± 0.64 | 14.63 ± 1.61 | <0.01 | <0.05 |
|
| 3.21 ± 0.42 | 12.76 ± 0.19 | <0.01 | 3.59 ± 0.18 | 18.33 ± 1.0 | <0.01 | <0.05 |
|
| 41.54 ± 1.77 | 32.51 ± 1.56 | <0.01 | 44.14± 1.12 | 28.38± 1.99 | <0.01 | =0.055 |
|
| 36.93 ± 1.67 | 34.69 ± 1.53 | NS | 29.86± 0.73 | 41.86 ± 1.83 | <0.01 | <0.01 |
LFDO vs. HFDO: p<0.01; NEFA – non-esterified fatty acids; n=12/group; NS – not significant
qRT-PCR for gene expression profiles in visceral fat of LFDO and HFDO female and male mice.
| Gene name | Relative expression | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gene symbol | RefSeq # | Female | Male | |||||
| LFDO | HFDO | p-value | LFDO | HFDO | p-value | |||
| Leptin | Lep | NM_008493.3 | 1 | 2.95 | 0.001 | 1 | 4.03 | 0.001 |
| Leptin receptor | Leptr | NM_46146.2 | 1 | 0.69 | 0.01 | 1 | 0.63 | 0.01 |
| Adiponectin | AdipoQ | NM_009605.4 | 1 | 0.58 | 0.001 | 1 | 0.26 | 0.001 |
| GLP-1 | GCG | NM_008100.3 | 1 | 1.19 | >0.05 | 1 | 1.18 | >0.05 |
| Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor | GLP-1r | NM_021332.2 | 1 | 1.1 | >0.05 | 1 | 1.54 | 0.006 |
N=12/group; expression levels for each of the genes is normalized against LFDO average expression; unpaired t test, 2-tailed p value reported.
Adipocytokine gene methylation levels in 20week-old offspring from pregnant mice fed with low fat diet (LFDO) or high fat diet (HFDO) during the 3rd trimester of gestation.
| (A) Adiponectin: | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adiponectin | |||||||||
| ADS2704RS - 5′UTR | ADS2718FS2-intron 1 | ADS2705FS1 - intron 1 | ADS2705FS2 - exon 2 | ||||||
| CpG #1 | CpG #2 | CpG #3 | CpG #4 | CpG #5 | CpG #6 | CpG #7 | |||
|
| -8562 | -8595 | -8614 | -6960 | -131 | +51 | +60 | ||
|
| +128 | +95 | +76 | +1730 | +8559 | +8740 | +8749 | ||
|
| |||||||||
|
|
|
| 52.2±1.5 |
| 65.9±1.0 | 79.6±2.3 | 71.8±1.5 | 66.5±2.4 |
|
|
|
|
| 54.5±3.1 |
| 66.9±1.4 | 83.3±3.8 | 75.2±2.6 | 72.9±4.1 |
|
|
| 89.4±0.9 | 72.2±2.8 | 82.5±1.5 | 77.0±1.2 | 95.8±1.4 | 77.7±2.2 | 83.2±1.7 | 83.4±1.0 | |
|
|
| 90.7±1.2 | 71.6±2.7 | 82.5±2.5 | 76.2±1.1 | 93.7±1.0 | 83.7±1.6 | 85.9±1.9 | 84.9±1.0 |
|
| 70.5±2.8 |
| 75.9±1.7 | 65.9±1.1 | 83.8±1.7 | 74.4±1.8 | 69.8±2.1 | 73.5±0.8 | |
|
|
| 65.9±2.0 |
| 72.2±2.0 | 62.8±2.3 | 78.1±1.8 | 73.2±1.0 | 71.2±0.7 | 71.3±1.1 |
Cells in bold indicate p value <0.01 for HFDO vs. LFDO using unpaired t-tests; n=8/group; p values remained significant after adjusting for multiple comparisons based on the number of CpG sites assessed and using the mean for the region as the denominator, as shown in shaded areas. Please note that each tissue was treated separately for statistical comparisons.
Cells in bold indicate p value <0.01 for HFDO vs. LFDO; n=8/group; ; p values remained significant after adjusting for multiple comparisons based on the number of CpG sites assessed and using the mean for the region as the denominator, as shown in shaded areas. Please note that each tissue was treated separately for statistical comparisons.
Cells in bold indicate p value <0.01 for HFDO vs. LFDO; n=8/group; ; p values remained significant after adjusting for multiple comparisons based on the number of CpG sites assessed and using the mean for the region as the denominator, as shown in shaded areas. Please note that each tissue was treated separately for statistical comparisons.
None of the comparisons for HFDO vs. LFDO achieved statistical significance (i.e., p<0.01); n=8/group