| Literature DB >> 23413782 |
Manar Awada1, Anne Meynier, Christophe O Soulage, Lilas Hadji, Alain Géloën, Michèle Viau, Lucie Ribourg, Berengère Benoit, Cyrille Debard, Michel Guichardant, Michel Lagarde, Claude Genot, Marie-Caroline Michalski.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dietary intake of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) is primarily recognized to protect against cardiovascular diseases, cognitive dysfunctions and the onset of obesity and associated metabolic disorders. However, some of their properties such as bioavailability can depend on their chemical carriers. The objective of our study was to test the hypothesis that the nature of n-3 PUFA carrier results in different metabolic effects related to adiposity, oxidative stress and inflammation.Entities:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23413782 PMCID: PMC3585798 DOI: 10.1186/1743-7075-10-23
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutr Metab (Lond) ISSN: 1743-7075 Impact factor: 4.169
Formulation of the experimental diets
| | | | | |
| Lipid mixture | 5 | 20 | 20 | 20 |
| Among which: | | | | |
| Lard | 2 | 18.10 | 18.10 | 18.06 |
| Sunflower oil | 0.64 | 1.1 | 0.6 | 0.2 |
| Oleic sunflower | 1.27 | 0.0 | 0.4 | - |
| Kiwi seed oil | 0.29 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.02 |
| Tuna oil | - | - | - | 0.9 |
| Phospholipids | | | | |
| PL-DHA | - | - | 0.8 | - |
| Lecithin PL-LA | 0.8 | 0.8 | - | 0.8 |
| Corn starch | 54 | 39 | 39 | 39 |
| Casein | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 |
| Sucrose | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 |
| Pure cellulose | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Vitamin mixture | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Mineral mixture | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Tocopherolsa | 0.000 | 0.084 | 0.099 | 0.092 |
| Energy content (kJ/g) | 14.88 | 18.14 | 18.14 | 18.14 |
| Energy% | | | | |
| Protein | 19.1 | 15.7 | 15.7 | 15.7 |
| Carbohydrates | 57.6 | 34.1 | 34.1 | 34.1 |
| Lipids | 12.8 | 41.5 | 41.5 | 41.5 |
aConsidering the difference observed in tocopherols in lipid mixtures, which can affect their metabolic impact [31], care was taken to supplement lipid mixtures with α-tocopherol during formulation to achieve iso-tocopherol diets.
Fatty acid composition in the diets
| SFA | 11.3 ± 1.6 | 71 ± 12$ | 64 ± 1$ | 66 ± 5$ |
| MUFA | 24 ± 6 | 82 ± 14$ | 76 ± 1$ | 72 ± 5$ |
| 12 ± 2 | 29 ± 5$ | 21 ± 1$ | 21 ± 1$ | |
| 2.1 ± 0.2 | 2.0 ± 0.4 | 2.8 ± 0.2$* | 3.9 ± 0.1$* | |
| Among which 18 :3 | 2.1 ± 0.2 | 2.0 ± 0.4 | 2.0 ± 0.1 | 1.9 ± 0.1 |
| 20 :5 | - | - | 0.2 ± 0.0$*£ | 0.4 ± 0.2$* |
| 22 :6 | - | - | 2.8 ± 0.2$*£ | 3.9 ± 0.2$* |
| Total PUFA | 13.8 ± 2.3 | 30.4 ± 5$ | 23.7 ± 0.4$ | 25.0 ± 1.4$ |
| 5.4 ± 0.4* | 14.3 ± 0.3 | 7.7 ± 0.5* | 5.4 ± 0.2* | |
| Total FA | 49 ± 9 | 184 ± 31$ | 163 ± 2$ | 162 ±11$ |
| α-tocopherol (μg/g chow) | 185 ± 6 | 219 ± 4 | 201 ± 1 | 207 ± 18 |
(*P < 0.05 vs HF); ($P < 0.05 vs LF), (£P < 0.05 vs HF-w3TG). ANOVA followed by Fisher test. Data are mean ± SEM for n = 3. Abbreviations: FA, fatty acids; MUFA, monounsaturated fatty acids; SFA, saturated fatty acids.
Morphologic parameters, food intake and plasma lipid concentrations of mice
| Biometric data | | | | |
| Initial Body weight (g) | 24.1 ± 0.4 | 24.2 ± 0.3 | 23.9 ± 0.3 | 24.5 ± 0.3 |
| Body weight gain (g) | 4.1 ± 0.1 | 4.2 ± 0.5 | 3.1 ± 0.1*$ | 3.7 ± 0.3 |
| Energy Intake (kJ/mouse/d) | 39.1 ± 0.9 | 68.9 ± 0.3$ | 60.2 ± 1.3$ | 59.8 ± 1.3$ |
| Liver weight (g) | 1.39 ± 0.03 | 1.36 ± 0.03 | 1.21 ± 0.04*$ | 1.27 ± 0.04* |
| WAT weight (g) | 0.84 ± 0.05 | 1.03 ± 0.12 | 0.72 ± 0.05* | 0.93 ± 0.11 |
| Gastrocnemius (g) | 0.16 ± 0.0 | 0.16 ± 0.0 | 0.16 ± 0.0 | 0.15 ± 0.0 |
| Plasma lipids | | | | |
| TAG (mM) | 0.89 ± 0.06 | 0.66 ± 0.09$ | 0.64 ± 0.04$ | 0.57 ± 0.04$ |
| NEFA (mM) | 0.62 ± 0.5 | 0.35 ± 0.02$ | 0.27 ± 0.01$ | 0.37 ± 0.02$ |
| Glucose (mmol/L) | 9.1 ± 0.8 | 8.6 ± 0.5 | 9.4 ± 0.9 | 9.2 ± 0.7 |
| Plasma insulin (pmol/L) | 37.0 ± 6.9 | 36.8 ± 3.0 | 24.5 ± 3.0 | 26.5 ± 4.8 |
| Liver lipids (mg total fatty acids/g tissue) | 30.3 ± 2.9 | 34.0 ± 3.0 | 30.3 ± 0.6 | 33.1 ± 3.7 |
| Lipid peroxidation markers in plasma (nM) | | | | |
| 4-HHE | 23.3 ± 13.5 | 103.7 ± 36.5 | 88.8 ± 32.0 | 128.0 ± 37.5 |
| 4-HNE | 4.9 ± 0.3* | 13.4 ± 0.5 | 5.9 ± 1.1* | 8.6 ± 0.3* |
(*P < 0.05 vs HF); ($P < 0.05 vs LF), ANOVA followed by Fisher test.
Data are mean ± SEM for n = 8 per group. Abbreviations: WAT, white adipose tissue; TAG, plasma triacyglycerols; NEFA, non-esterified fatty acids; 4-HHE, 4-hydroxy-2-hexenal; 4-HNE, 4-hydroxy-2-nonenal.
For 4-hydroxy-2-alkenals analysis, 3 pools of 300 μL obtained from 3 mice (100 μL per mice) were used for each group (n = 3).
Fatty acid profile in plasma in mice fed different diets
| SFA | 33.7 ± 0.3 | 34.5 ± 0.2 | 34.4 ± 1.3 | 36.1 ± 2.6 |
| 16:1 | 4.0 ± 0.5 | 1.6 ± 0.2$ | 1.2 ± 0.02$ | 1.6 ± 0.4$ |
| 18:1 | 2.7 ± 0.2 | 1.5 ± 0.1$ | 1.3 ± 0.1$ | 1.4 ± 0.3$ |
| 18:1 | 19.3 ± 1.9 | 15.6 ± 0.7$ | 16.1 ± 1.9$ | 13.4 ± 6.7$ |
| MUFA | 27.9 ± 1.0 | 19.6 ± 0.3$ | 19.5 ± 0.2$ | 17.3 ± 6.7$ |
| 18:2 | 21.2 ± 0.6 | 25.4 ± 0.2$ | 26.1 ± 0.4$ | 26.4 ± 0.8$ |
| 20:4 | 9.6 ± 1.2* | 14.3 ± 0.4 | 11.2 ± 0.5* | 9.5 ± 0.8* |
| 33.1 ± 0.9* | 42.1 ± 0.5 | 39.2 ± 1.0$ | 38.2 ± 3.2$* | |
| 18:3 | 0.4 ± 0.1 | Tr$ | 0.3 ± 0.0*$ | 0.2 ± 0.0$* |
| 20:5 | 0.7 ± 0.0 | Tr$ | 0.7 ± 0.0*£ | 1.2 ± 0.1$* |
| 22:6 | 3.8 ± 0.4 | 3.2 ± 0.1 | 4.9 ± 0.3$*£ | 6.6 ± 0.5$* |
| 5.2 ± 0.4 | 3.9 ± 0.1$ | 6.4 ± 0.2*£ | 8.4 ± 1.3$* | |
| 6.4 ± 0.3* | 10.9 ± 0.4 | 6.1 ± 0.2* | 4.6 ± 0.4* | |
(*P < 0.05 vs HF), ($P < 0.05 vs LF), (£P < 0.05 vs HF-ω3TG). Data are mean ± SEM for n = 5 per group. Abbreviations: Tr, traces FA; fatty acids; MUFA, monounsaturated fatty acids; SFA, saturated fatty acids.
Figure 1Relative n-6/n-3 fatty acid ratio in diets, plasma, Liver and WAT. The mice were fed LF, HF, HF-ω3PL and HF-ω3TG diets. The values were expressed as percentage of the ratio measured in the groups. Data are means ± SEM (n = 3-6).
Figure 2Inflammation and endotoxin metabolism parameters in plasma of mice fed different diets. (A) monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 (MCP-1; pg/ml); (B) Interleukin-6 (IL-6; μg/ml). (C) lipopolysaccharide binding protein (LBP; μg/ml). (D) (soluble cluster of differentiation 14 (sCD14; μg/ml). (E) leptin (ng/ml); (F) Adiponectin (μg/ml). Data are means ± SEM (n = 6-8). (*P < 0.05 vs HF); ($P < 0.05 vs LF). ANOVA followed by Fisher test.
Figure 3Inflammatory markers and tocopherol level in epididymal white adipose tissue (eWAT). MCP1 mRNA (A); IL-6 mRNA (B) and Tocopherol (μg/g lipids) (C). RT-quantitative PCR results of mRNA expression. Tocopherol level was measured as described in Materials & Methods. Bars represents means ± SEM of n = 5-6 mice. (*P < 0.05 vs HF); ($P < 0.05 vs LF); (£P < 0.05 vs HF-ω3TG). ANOVA followed by Fisher test.
Figure 4Frequency evolution of adipocyte size of mice in epididymal fat pad. Individual measurements were performed on 12 000–14 000 adipocytes using osmium tetroxide - coulter counter procedure as described in Methods. Note that distribution of adipocyte size was shifted leftward (ie. Towards smaller size) in HF-ω3PL mice compared to HF and HF-ω3TG mice. Value are shown for one representative curve for each group.
Comparison of adipose cell size variables in eWAT of LF, HF, HF-ω3PL and HF-ω3TG mice
| | | | | |
| eWAT (mg) | 502 ± 29 | 588 ± 69 | 423 ± 21* | 536 ± 59 |
| Mode (μm) | 77.3 ± 3.9* | 89.3 ± 6.0 | 75.6 ± 1.8*£ | 84.9 ± 5.5 |
| Cell diameter (μm) | 67.1 ± 3.1# | 74.6 ± 3.4 | 64.3 ± 3.0* | 70.5 ± 4.1 |
| Cell weight (ng) | 455.5 ± 46.5# | 619.9 ± 49.2 | 434.8 ± 42.9* | 496.5 ± 99.8 |
| Nb cells (x106) | 1.19 ± 0.01 | 1.12 ± 0.14 | 1.03 ± 0.07 | 0.99 ± 0.07 |
(*P < 0.05 vs HF); (#P = 0.07 vs HF); (£P < 0.05 vs HF-ω3TG).
Data are mean ± SEM for n = 4-5 per group. Abbreviations: eWAT, epididymal white adipose tissue.
Figure 5Expression of gastro-intestinal glutathione peroxidase 2 (GPx2) RNA in the small intestine. (A) duodenum and (B) jejunum of mice fed LF, HF, HF-ω3PL and HF-ω3TG diets during 8 weeks. This analysis was quantified by qPCR. Bars represents means ± SEM of n = 5-6 mice. (*P < 0.05 vs HF); ANOVA followed by Fisher test.