| Literature DB >> 23935682 |
Xiao Rong Yang1, Elaine Wat, Yan Ping Wang, Chun Hay Ko, Chi Man Koon, Wing Sum Siu, Si Gao, David Wing Shing Cheung, Clara Bik San Lau, Chuang Xing Ye, Ping Chung Leung.
Abstract
Recent studies suggested that green tea has the potential to protect against diet-induced obesity. The presence of caffeine within green tea has caused limitations. Cocoa tea (Camellia ptilophylla) is a naturally decaffeinated tea plant. To determine whether cocoa tea supplementation results in an improvement in high-fat diet-induced obesity, hyperlipidemia and hepatic steatosis, and whether such effects would be comparable to those of green tea extract, we studied six groups (n = 10) of C57BL/6 mice that were fed with (1) normal chow (N); (2) high-fat diet (21% butterfat + 0.15% cholesterol, wt/wt) (HF); (3) a high-fat diet supplemented with 2% green tea extract (HFLG); (4) a high-fat diet supplemented with 4% green tea extract (HFHG); (5) a high-fat diet supplemented with 2% cocoa tea extract (HFLC); and (6) a high-fat diet supplemented with 4% cocoa tea extract (HFHC). From the results, 2% and 4% dietary cocoa tea supplementation caused a dose-dependent decrease in (a) body weight, (b) fat pad mass, (c) liver weight, (d) total liver lipid, (e) liver triglyceride and cholesterol, and (f) plasma lipids (triglyceride and cholesterol). These data indicate that dietary cocoa tea, being naturally decaffeinated, has a beneficial effect on high-fat diet-induced obesity, hepatomegaly, hepatic steatosis, and elevated plasma lipid levels in mice, which are comparable to green tea. The present findings have provided the proof of concept that dietary cocoa tea might be of therapeutic value and could therefore provide a safer and cost effective option for patients with diet-induced metabolic syndrome.Entities:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23935682 PMCID: PMC3723092 DOI: 10.1155/2013/783860
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
Ingredient composition of normal control diet, SF04-057, and high-fat semipurified diet, SF00-219.
| Ingredients | SF04-057 | SF00-219 |
|---|---|---|
| Casein (acid) | 195 | 195 |
| Sucrose | 341 | 341 |
| Canola oil | 60 | 0 |
| Clarified Butter (ghee) | 0 | 210 |
| Cellulose | 50 | 50 |
| Wheat starch | 306 | 154 |
| DL methionine | 3.0 | 3.0 |
| Calcium carbonate | 17.1 | 17.1 |
| Sodium chloride | 2.6 | 2.6 |
| AIN93 trace minerals | 1.4 | 1.4 |
| Potassium citrate | 2.5 | 2.6 |
| Potassium dihydrogen phosphate | 6.9 | 6.9 |
| Potassium sulphate | 1.6 | 1.6 |
| Choline chloride (60%) | 2.5 | 2.5 |
| SF00-219 vitamins | 10 | 10 |
| Cholesterol | 0 | 1.5 |
| Oxicap E2 | 0.04 | 0.04 |
Figure 1HPLC profiles of (a) green tea and (b) cocoa tea aqueous extracts. Detection was performed at UV 210 nm.
Amount of each chemical markers within cocoa tea and green tea extracts.
| Chemical markers | Quantity (mg/100 mg) | |
|---|---|---|
| Green tea | Cocoa tea | |
| Thea | 1.59 ± 0.19 | 1.05 ± 0.09 |
| TB | 0.35 ± 0.02 | 10.32 ± 0.18 |
| CAF | 6.12 ± 0.03 | Not detected |
| EGC | 5.57 ± 0.04 | 1.03 ± 0.14 |
| C | 1.43 ± 0.07 | 7.44 ± 0.11 |
| EC | 4.95 ± 0.48 | 0.44 ± 0.01 |
| EGCG | 8.54 ± 0.09 | 1.17 ± 0.08 |
| GCG | 0.58 ± 0.01 | 11.07 ± 0.18 |
| ECG | 5.17 ± 0.04 | 0.68 ± 0.02 |
Values represent means ± SEM (n = 3).
Body weights and daily food intake of mice fed normal chow or a high-fat diet with or without green tea or cocoa tea supplementation at different concentrations.
| N | HF | HFLG | HFHG | HFLC | HFHC | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Initial body wt. (g) | 22.7 ± 0.4 | 23.1 ± 0.3 | 22.8 ± 0.6 | 22.5 ± 0.6 | 22.7 ± 0.6 | 22.5 ± 0.5 |
| Final body wt. (g) | 26.7 ± 0.8 | 33.9 ± 1.3*** | 26.4 ± 0.7### | 23.8 ± 0.7 ### | 28.5 ± 0.5### | 25.6 ± 0.4### |
| Wt. gain (g) | 4.0 ± 0.5 | 10.8 ± 1.1*** | 3.6 ± 0.4### | 1.3 ± 0.3### | 5.9 ± 0.4### | 3.1 ± 0.3### |
| Daily food intake (g) | 2.6 ± 0.1 | 3.0 ± 0.1 | 2.8 ± 0.1 | 2.6 ± 0.1## | 2.8 ± 0.1 | 2.7 ± 0.1 |
Values represent means ± SEM (n = 10).
Significant difference between N and HF mice using one-way ANOVA: ***P < 0.001.
Significant difference between HF and HFLG, HFHG, HFLC, and HFHC mice using one-way ANOVA: ## P < 0.01, ### P < 0.001.
Liver weights and liver to body weight ratio of mice fed normal chow or a high-fat diet with or without green tea or cocoa tea supplementation at different concentrations.
| N | HF | HFLG | HFHG | HFLC | HFHC | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Liver wt. (g) | 1.08 ± 0.04 | 1.43 ± 0.10*** | 0.99 ± 0.03### | 0.84 ± 0.03### | 1.02 ± 0.02### | 0.87 ± 0.02### |
| Liver wt./body wt. (g/100 g) | 4.34 ± 0.05 | 4.41 ± 0.16 | 4.05 ± 0.05# | 3.83 ± 0.04### | 3.83 ± 0.04### | 3.77 ± 0.03### |
Values represent means ± SEM (n = 10).
Significant difference between N and HF mice using one-way ANOVA: ***P < 0.001.
Significant difference between HF and HFLG, HFHG, HFLC, and HFHC mice using one-way ANOVA: # P < 0.05, ### P < 0.001.
Fat pad weights of mice fed normal chow or a high-fat diet with or without green tea or cocoa tea supplementation at different concentrations.
| N | HF | HFLG | HFHG | HFLC | HFHC | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Epididymal fat pad wt. (mg) | 397 ± 52 | 1467 ± 165*** | 442 ± 64### | 233 ± 19### | 632 ± 50### | 329 ± 31 ### |
| Epididymal fat pad wt./body wt. (g/100 g) | 1.55 ± 0.17 | 4.46 ± 0.37 *** | 1.77 ± 0.21### | 1.07 ± 0.08### | 2.35 ± 0.16### | 1.42 ± 12### |
| Perirenal fat pad wt. (g) | 139 ± 25 | 517 ± 55*** | 135 ± 19### | 67 ± 6### | 232 ± 20 ### | 88 ± 12### |
| Perirenal fat pad wt./body wt. (g/100 g) | 0.54 ± 0.08 | 1.58 ± 0.13*** | 0.54 ± 0.06### | 0.31 ± 0.03### | 0.86 ± 0.07###+ | 0.38 ± 0.05### |
| Inguinal fat pad wt. (g) | 257 ± 52 | 752 ± 135*** | 258 ± 41### | 205 ± 10### | 394 ± 32## | 214 ± 20### |
| Inguinal fat pad wt./body wt. (g/100 g) | 0.99 ± 0.17 | 2.25 ± 0.34*** | 1.03 ± 0.14### | 0.95 ± 0.06### | 1.47 ± 0.10# | 0.92 ± 0.08### |
Values represent means ± SEM (n = 10).
Significant difference between N and HF mice using one-way ANOVA: ***P < 0.001.
Significant difference between HF and HFLG, HFHG, HFLC, and HFHC mice using one-way ANOVA: # P < 0.05, ## P < 0.01, ### P < 0.001.
Significant difference between HFLG and HFLC mice using one-way ANOVA: + P < 0.05.
Figure 2Histological appearance of liver sections of (a) a normal chow-fed mice; (b) a high-fat fed mice; (c) a high-fat fed mice supplemented with 2% green tea extract; (d) a high-fat fed mice supplemented with 4% green tea extract; (e) a high-fat fed mice supplemented with 2% cocoa tea extract; and (f) a high-fat fed mice supplemented with 4% cocoa tea extract. Sections were stained with haematoxylin and eosin. Lipid accumulation in the liver of HF-fed mice was very evident due to the presence of circular lipid droplets. Circular lipid droplets were significantly reduced in sections from both green tea and cocoa tea supplemented animals.
Figure 3Total lipid in the liver of mice fed a normal chow or high-fat diet, with or without the addition of green tea or cocoa tea supplementation at different concentrations. (a) shows results obtained gravimetrically expressed as mg of lipid per grams of liver; (b) shows results expressed as mg of lipid per whole liver. Mice were fed diets for 8 weeks. Values represent means ± SEM (n = 10). Significant difference between N and HF mice using one-way ANOVA: ***P < 0.001. Significant difference among HF and HFLG, HFHG, HFLC, and HFHC mice using one-way ANOVA: ### P < 0.001.
Figure 4Liver TG (a) and Chol (b) of mice fed a normal chow or high-fat diet, with or without the addition of green tea or cocoa tea supplementation at different concentrations. Results expressed as μmol/grams of liver. Mice were fed diets for 8 weeks. Values represent means ± SEM (n = 10). Significant difference between N and HF mice using one-way ANOVA: ***P < 0.001. Significant difference among HF and HFLG, HFHG, HFLC, and HFHC mice using one-way ANOVA: ## P < 0.01, ### P < 0.001.
Plasma lipid in mice fed normal chow or a high-fat diet with or without green tea or cocoa tea supplementation at different concentrations.
| N | HF | HFLG | HFHG | HFLC | HFHC | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Triglyceride (mmol/L) | 0.92 ± 0.02 | 1.15 ± 0.05* | 0.57 ± 0.02### | 0.49 ± 0.04### | 0.92 ± 0.02# | 0.65 ± 0.02### |
| Cholesterol (mmol/L) | 2.72 ± 0.13 | 5.89 ± 0.20∗∗∗ | 3.68 ± 0.09### | 3.54 ± 0.13### | 3.67 ± 0.07### | 3.33 ± 0.10### |
Values represent means ± SEM (n = 10).
Significant difference between N and HF mice using one-way ANOVA: *P < 0.05, ***P < 0.001.
Significant difference among HF and HFLG, HFHG, HFLC, and HFHC mice using one-way ANOVA: # P < 0.05, ### P < 0.001.
Figure 5Effect of green tea and cocoa tea supplementations on (a) LDL-R; (b) HMG Co-A reductase; (c) CD36; and (d) PPAR-γ mRNA levels in the liver of chow-fed and high-fat-fed mice. Mice were fed diets for 8 weeks. Values represent means ± SEM (n = 3-4). Significant difference between N and HF mice using one-way ANOVA: *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01. Significant difference among HF and HFLG, HFHG, HFLC, and HFHC mice using one-way ANOVA: # P < 0.05, ## P < 0.01.