Although radiation-induced tissue-specific injury is well documented, the underlying molecular changes resulting in organ dysfunction and the consequences thereof on overall metabolism and physiology have not been elucidated. We previously reported the generation and characterization of a transgenic mouse strain that ubiquitously overexpresses Gfrp (GTPH-1 feedback regulatory protein) and exhibits higher oxidative stress, which is a possible result of decreased tetrahydrobiopterin (BH4) bioavailability. In this study, we report genotype-dependent changes in the metabolic profiles of liver tissue after exposure to nonlethal doses of ionizing radiation. Using a combination of untargeted and targeted quantitative mass spectrometry, we report significant accumulation of metabolites associated with oxidative stress, as well as the dysregulation of lipid metabolism in transgenic mice after radiation exposure. The radiation stress seems to exacerbate lipid peroxidation and also results in higher expression of genes that facilitate liver fibrosis, in a manner that is dependent on the genetic background and post-irradiation time interval. These findings suggest the significance of Gfrp in regulating redox homeostasis in response to stress induced by ionizing radiation affecting overall physiology.
Although radiation-induced tissue-specific injury is well documented, the underlying molecular changes resulting in organ dysfunction and the consequences thereof on overall metabolism and physiology have not been elucidated. We previously reported the generation and characterization of a transgenicmouse strain that ubiquitously overexpresses Gfrp (GTPH-1 feedback regulatory protein) and exhibits higher oxidative stress, which is a possible result of decreased tetrahydrobiopterin (BH4) bioavailability. In this study, we report genotype-dependent changes in the metabolic profiles of liver tissue after exposure to nonlethal doses of ionizing radiation. Using a combination of untargeted and targeted quantitative mass spectrometry, we report significant accumulation of metabolites associated with oxidative stress, as well as the dysregulation of lipid metabolism in transgenic mice after radiation exposure. The radiation stress seems to exacerbate lipid peroxidation and also results in higher expression of genes that facilitate liver fibrosis, in a manner that is dependent on the genetic background and post-irradiation time interval. These findings suggest the significance of Gfrp in regulating redox homeostasis in response to stress induced by ionizing radiation affecting overall physiology.
The liver is a vital
organ primarily responsible for detoxification,
emulsification of fats, and maintenance of constant blood glucose
levels.[1] The molecular mechanism of liver
injury as a consequence of ionizing radiation (IR) exposure, especially
in the context of concomitant radiotherapy, is not well understood.[2−5] IR can cause perturbations in RNA and protein expression patterns,
which may lead to enhanced oxidative stress and subsequent cell death.
There is, however, a paucity of studies that evaluate direct effects
of radiation-induced liver tissue injury and its implications on organ
function and metabolism. Recently, metabolomic studies based on nuclear
magnetic resonance spectroscopy (NMR) and gas chromatography–mass
spectrometry (GC-MS) have reported several metabolic biomarkers of
radiation exposure in biofluids such as urine and blood plasma using
animal models.[6−8] Metabolomic read out of cellular processes is increasingly
gaining credence as an approach to identify biomarkers of IR exposure
and to understand the metabolic changes accompanying radiation exposure.[9−12]Tetrahydrobiopterin (BH4) is a natural antioxidant and its
de novo
synthesis is strictly regulated by the enzyme GTP cyclohydrolase-1
(GTPCH-1).[13] The enzymatic activity of
GTPCH-1 can be inhibited by GTPCH-1 feedback regulatory protein (Gfrp),
resulting in low BH4 bioavailability and increased oxidative stress.[14] We have recently developed a novel, overexpressed
Gfrp “knock-in” transgenicmouse that shows decreased
levels of total glutathione (GSH) and a higher percentage of glutathione
disulfide (GSSG) in peripheral blood compared to its control littermates
at the basal level.[15] Therefore, this mouse
model could be used as an in vivo model of elevated oxidative stress.
Moreover, this mouse model may provide valuable insights toward understanding
the role of BH4-mediated redox homeostasis in normal tissue injury
in response to IR.Radiation is known to generate reactive oxygen
species (ROS) resulting
in oxidative stress.[16] In order to detoxify
the detrimental effects of excess ROS, the liver has an array of antioxidant
systems that include enzymatic and nonenzymatic components. BH4 is
one of the key nonenzymatic components of the antioxidant system and
is known to be down-regulated by IR.[17] BH4
also regulates the catalytic activity of enzymes involved in maintaining
cellular redox balance, including endothelial nitric oxide synthase
(eNOS). Therefore, impairment of BH4 biosysnthesis and/or exposure
to IR may likely disrupt redox homeostasis, which in turn may modulate
molecular targets of fibrosis which is generally considered as a delayed
effect of IR exposure.We set out to determine the role of Gfrp
overexpression on liver
metabolic profiles, particularly with respect to oxidative stress
and fibrosis, in irradiated mice. Gfrptransgenic mice and their control
littermates were exposed to a nonlethal dose of 8.5 Gy of total body
irradiation (TBI). Liver tissue was collected at 24 h and 4 days postirradiation
to investigate acute and subacute radiation effects, respectively,
on biochemical and metabolic responses. The radiation dose and the
postirradiation time of tissue collection in this study were selected
because of following reasons: (a) current study was undertaken as
a further extension of our previous findings, (b) to find out the
role of liver metabolites, especially involved in oxidative stress
and fibrosis, in making Gfrptransgenic mice more susceptible to IR
under identical experimental conditions as observed in our previously
published results, (c) no mortality of mice is expected within the
time frame and radiation dose used in this study as confirmed from
previously published survival data, and (d) previous reports show
that a dose of 6 Gy or more of TBI is required to induce change in
liver fibrogenic profile.[18,19] We used ultraperformance
liquid chromatography (UPLC) coupled with electrospray ionization
mass spectrometry (ESI-MS) to perform untargeted small molecule metabolite
profiling of matched sham and irradiated groups. Subsequently, stable
isotope dilution multiple reaction monitoring mass spectrometry was
used to confirm distinct changes in lipid and amino acid metabolism
based on treatment and genetic background of mice. We observed that
radiation exposure causes enhanced lipid peroxidation and increased
expression of genes known to promote liver fibrosis in Gfrp knock-in
mice as compared to their control littermates. Taken together, our
data demonstrate that Gfrp overexpressing mice exhibit higher susceptibility
to a compromised liver function in response to radiation exposure.
Materials
and Methods
Reagents and Standards
Acetonitrile (ACN), methanol,
and water (LC-MS grade) were purchased from Fisher Scientific (NJ,
U.S.A.). Debrisoquine, 4-nitrobenzoic acid (4-NBA) was purchased from
Sigma (U.S.A.). All compounds used for validation of metabolite identification
were bought from Sigma, and the lipid standards were purchased from
Avanti Polar Lipids, Inc. (Alabama, U.S.A.).
Transgenic Mice Generation,
Transgene Expression, and Animal
Maintenance
The details of Gfrptransgenic mice generation
and the mechanism of transgene overexpression have been described
elsewhere.[15] Briefly, the plasmid construct
containing Gfrp transgene was introduced in the C57BL/6 embryos by
microinjection to develop the Gfrp founders, and the transgene was
subsequently allowed to express in F1 generation mice by crossing
Gfrp male founders with EIIaCre female mice (stock
no. 003724; The Jackson Laboratory, CA, U.S.A.), which allows ubiquitous
Gfrp transgene overexpression in F1 generation mice that bear a single
copy of the transgene, whereas the littermates lacking the transgene
were used as wild-type control mice. The presence of transgene in
F1 generation mice was detected by tail DNA genotyping using transgene
specific PCR primers.[15] Ten to 12 weeks
old F1 generation male mice with an average body weight of 23 to 26
g were used in this study. All mice were kept in a temperature-controlled
room with a 12 h light/dark cycle and provided with regular chow (Harlan
Teklad laboratory diet 7012, Purina Mills, St. Louis, MO) and water.
All animal procedures were performed in accordance with a protocol
approved by the Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System Institutional
Animal Care and Use Committee. Research was conducted according to
the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, prepared by
the Institute of Laboratory Animal Resources, the National Research
Council, and U.S. National Academy of Sciences.
Radiation Exposure
Irradiation was performed with a
J. L. Shepherd Mark I, model 25 137Cs irradiator (J. L.
Shepherd & Associates, San Fernando, CA). Unanesthetized mice
were placed in cylindrical, well-ventilated Plexiglas chambers (J.
L. Shepherd & Associates) divided into four 90° “pie
slice” compartments by vertical dividers made of T-6061 aluminum
(machinable grade) with a gold anodized coating. Two chambers were
stacked on top of each other and placed on a turntable rotating at
5 rpm in the position furthest away from the radiation source, allowing
eight mice to be irradiated at a time. The average dose rate was 1.21
Gy per minute, and mice were exposed to 8.5 Gy of total body irradiation.
Dose uniformity was assessed by thermoluminescence dosimetry (TLD).
Tissue-equivalent mouse phantoms were placed into each of the compartments
of the same Plexiglas chambers used for irradiation. Two Harshaw TLD-100
lithium fluoride chips were placed into the center of each phantom
and exposed to radiation with the turntable rotating. The irradiated
TLD chips and unirradiated control chips were subsequently analyzed
by an independent company (K&S Associates, Inc., Nashville, TN).
Groups of four to eight mice were euthanized humanely at set postirradiation
time intervals (24 h and 4 day). Mice abdominal cavity was opened
with a fine scissor and liver tissue was collected in a 1.5 mL Eppendorf
tube. The collected tissue was immediately snap frozen in liquid nitrogen
and finally stored in −80 °C until further use. Samples
from individual mouse were analyzed separately throughout the experiment,
without pooling the samples from different animals of the same group.
For all assays, four to six mice per genotype per treatment group
were included.
Metabolite Extraction
Sample preparation
for metabolite
extraction was performed as described previously.[20] Briefly, 200 μL of 50% chilled methanol (MeOH/H2O,
1:1 v/v) containing internal standards was added to tissue sections
in MagNA Lyser tubes containing ceramic beads. The samples were homogenized
using three 30 s pulses in a MagNA Lyser homogenizer (Roche, U.S.A.)
at 7000 rpm. The supernatant was transferred to a fresh tube, and
400 μL of chilled 100% ACN was added. The pellets were used
for protein quantification using the Bradford method. The samples
were incubated on ice for 15 min and centrifuged at 13 000
rpm at 4◦C for 15 min. The supernatant was transferred
to a fresh tube and dried under vacuum. The samples were resuspended
in 300 μL of solvent containing 95% water, 5% MeOH for mass
spectrometry analysis.
UPLC-ESI-Q-TOF-MS Profiling
Metabolites
extracted from
control and irradiated tissue samples were analyzed as a single injection
for each sample. Five microliters of each sample was injected onto
a 50 mm × 2.1 mm Acquity 1.7 μm C18 column using an Acquity
UPLC system online with electrospray quadrupole-time-of-flight tandem
mass spectrometer (ESI-Q-TOF) (QTOF Premiere, Waters Corp, Milford,
MA). The gradient mobile phase consisted of 0.1% formic acid (A) and
acetonitrile containing 0.1% formic acid (B). The instrument was operated
with a capillary voltage of 3.2 kV and a sampling cone voltage of
35.0 V in positive mode with a flow rate of 0.5 mL/min. The other
conditions comprise the following: extraction cone voltage, 2.7 V;
source temperature, 120 °C; desolvation temperature, 350 °C;
desolvation gas flow rate, 800 L/h; cone gas flow rate, 25 L/h. Mass
spectra were acquired over the mass range of 50–1200 m/z in the centroid mode. A 500 pg/μL
solution of sulfadimethoxine in 50% acetonitrile ([M + H]+, m/z 311.0814) was infused at
0.08 μL/min flow rate as the reference mass (lock mass) for
accurate mass measurements. The quality control samples comprised
an aliquot of all samples (all groups and time points) in the study
set, thus representing a universal set of metabolites for this study.
Initially, the column was conditioned using this QC sample, and thereafter
it was injected after every 10 injections to account for reproducibility
of the LC-MS data. The coefficient of variance for the QC samples
was less than 5%. This approach has been recommended as a standard
practice leading metabolomics researchers.[21]
LC-MS Data Processing
The UPLC-QTOF raw data files
were converted into NetCDF format (Network Common Data Form) using
the MassLynx software (Waters Corp, Milford, MA). Subsequently, the
LC-MS data were preprocessed using XCMS software, as has been described
previously.[22] For untargeted metabolomic
profiling detailed in this study, the internal standards were added
before extraction by spiking the extraction buffer with a known concentration
of internal standards to account for variability in the extraction
procedure as well as during MS-based data acquisition. Subsequently,
the data were normalized to the internal standards and to the total
protein concentration. The data were log transformed before further
analysis. Relative quantitation was achieved for molecular ions using
the UPLC-QTOF system by taking a ratio of normalized intensity of
the respective sham and irradiated groups for the ions of interest.
This approach has been used by several laboratories including ours
in previously reported studies.[10,23−25] In order to ensure data quality and reliability, a test mix of standard
metabolites was injected at the beginning and at the end of the batch
and the extracted ion chromatograms were evaluated for mass accuracy
and sensitivity with respect to intensity for the given standards.
The normalized data were processed using MetaboAnalyst software (2.0)[26] using univariate and multivariate analysis methods.
PLS-DA was used for checking the assumption that the groups of interest
are different from each other and to assess the “goodness”
of the model using R2 and Q2 as descriptors of model quality. We employed a 10-fold
cross-validation method in Metaboanalyst to determine the optimal
number of components to the model. The candidate markers were selected
by examining the volcano plot by considering fold-change threshold
of 2 and statistical p-value less than 0.05. These
metabolites were initially identified based on their m/z against Metabosearch, which inquires accurate
mass-based identification through four main online databases: the
Human Metabolome Database (HMDB), Lipid Maps, Madison Metabolomics
Consortium Database (MMCD), and Metlin.[27] The identity of metabolites was then confirmed by comparisons of
fragmentation spectra and retention time with pure standards using
tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS). Signal intensities of the differentially
abundant metabolites were visualized as a heat map. As mentioned previously,
the raw data were log transformed and hierarchically clustered by
Pearson correlation and average linkage clustering.
Lipid Peroxidation
Assay
The mouse tissues were sonicated
in RIPA buffer with protease inhibitor for 3 cycles of 15 s each on
ice. The tubes were centrifuged at 14 000 rpm for 10 min at
4 °C. The supernatant was used for the lipid peroxidation assay.
The assay was performed using the TBARS kit (Cayman Chemicals, U.S.A.)
as per the manufacturer’s instructions. Briefly, samples or
standard MDA was mixed with 4 mL of assay reagent (containing TBA
acetic acid and TBA sodium hydroxide). The vials were tightly capped
and kept in a boiling water bath for 1 h and subsequently transferred
to ice for 10 min to quench the reaction. The vials were centrifuged
at 14 000 rpm for 10 min at 4 °C. From each vial, 150
μL of the supernatant was transferred to a clear 96-well plate,
and the absorbance was read at 530 nm and corrected using a blank.
The corrected absorbance of MDA was plotted as a function of MDA concentration,
and the concentration of MDA for each sample was extrapolated from
the standard curve. MDA (μM) = [corrected absorbance –
y intercept/slope]. ANOVA (analysis of variance) was performed to
test the significance of change in different biological groups at
different time points.
Mouse Fibrosis Array
Isolation of RNA
The liver tissues were stabilized
in RNALater before isolation. The RNA was isolated using RNA extraction
kit (RNAeasy, Qiagen). Briefly, the tissues were homogenized using
Powergen-125 homogenizer in 250 μL of RLT buffer. The lysate
was centrifuged at 14 000 rpm for 2 min. Supernatant was carefully
removed and transferred to an eppendorf tube followed by addition
of 1 vol of 70% ethanol and mixed by pipetting. The lysate was loaded
to the spin column placed in a 2 mL collection tube and centrifuged
at 14 000 rpm for 30 s to collect RNA in RNase-free water.
cDNA Synthesis
The cDNA was synthesized using first
strand synthesis kit (SA Biosciences). The reagents of the kit were
thawed on ice and spun briefly. Genomic DNA elimination mix was made
as 1000 ng of RNA, 2 μL of buffer and RNase-free water to make
the total volume of 10 μL. The mix was incubated at 42 °C
for 5 min and immediately placed on ice for at least 1 min. Reverse-transcriptase
mixture was added to tube containing 10 μL of DNA elimination
mix, the mixture was mixed well and incubated at 42 °C for 15
min, and the reaction was stopped by immediately incubating at 95
°C for 5 min. The reaction was quenched by the addition of RNase-free
water.
Real-Time PCR for RT2 Profiler PCR Array
The RT2 Profiler PCR array (Mousefibrosis array kit,
QIAGEN, U.S.A.) was purchased from Qiagen as a 96-well kit. Each well
is coated with one gene-specific primer (84 genes) along with five
housekeeping genes, one genomic DNA contamination (MGDC), and three
positive PCR controls. A master mix containing a defined volume and
concentration ratio of RT2 SYBR Green, cDNA synthesis reaction
mixture, and RNase free water was prepared, and 25 μL of this
mix was added to each well of the PCR array with the help of multichannel
pipet. Q-PCR was performed on ABI PRISM 7900HT Sequence Detection
System (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA). Cycle threshold values
for each reaction were adjusted automatically. The fold-change values
were derived relative to the control and normalized with the house
keeping genes. The reaction cycle was set as Stage 1–95 °C
for 10 min, Stage 2–95 °C for 15 s, followed by 60 °C
for 1 min with repeats (40 cycles) and with the dissociation stage.
The experiment was run in standard mode. Data analysis was performed
using Graphpad prism software.
Stable Isotope Dilution
– Multiple Reaction Monitoring
Mass Spectrometry (SID-MRM-MS)
Targeted metabolomic analysis
of liver tissue samples was performed using the Biocrates Absolute-IDQ
P180 (BIOCRATES, Life Science AG, Innsbruck, Austria). This targeted
assay allows for simultaneous detection and quantification of metabolites
in biological matrices in a high-throughput manner.[28,29] Metabolite extraction from the tissue samples was performed by homogenizing
in 50% methanol and subsequently processed as per the instructions
by the manufacturer and analyzed on a triple quadrupole mass spectrometer
(Xevo TQ-S, Waters Corporation, U.S.A.) operating in the MRM mode.
The measurements were made in a 96-well format for a total of 34 tissue
samples from Gfrp (WT and transgenic) mice that were sham irradiated
or collected after 24 h and 4 days of radiation exposure, seven calibration
standards, and three quality control samples that were integrated
in the kit. Briefly, the flow injection analysis (FIA) tandem mass
spectrometry (MS/MS) method was used to quantify a panel of 144 lipids
including 39 acylcarnitines, 15 sphingomyelins, and 90 phosphatidylcholines
simultaneously by multiple reaction monitoring. The targeted analysis
of lipids using flow injection analysis has been tested for linearity
over a broad concentration range using lipid standards. The other
metabolites including amino acids and biogenic amines were resolved
on the UPLC and quantified using scheduled MRMs. Data were normalized
to the total protein concentration of tissue lysates and analyzed
using the MetIQ software (Biocrates, Inc.). The samples were run as
triplicates, and the coefficient of variance of individual metabolites
was ≤15%. Quality control samples were used to assess reproducibility
of the assay, which includes lipids of all classes. Difference detection
was performed using the Metaboanalyst statistical tool suite.[30]
Results
Identification of Markers
of Radiation Exposure in Liver Tissue
Extracts in Control Gfrp Mice
We performed comparative metabolomic
profiling of liver tissue obtained from sham-treated mice or those
exposed to 8.5 Gy of IR, in sham and IR treated groups, after 24 h
or 4 days of radiation exposure. Preprocessing using XCMS resulted
in a three-dimensional data matrix (m/z, retention time, and intensity values) consisting of a total of
1477 (24 h) and 1473 (4 days) features that were subsequently used
for multivariate analyses (Table 1). Consequently,
a partial least square–discriminant analysis (PLS-DA) was performed
to delineate putative metabolites that contribute to class separation.
At 24 h and at 4 days, the R2 and Q2 values were 0.93 and 0.76 and 0.99 and 0.72,
respectively, yielding good support for the model quality (Figure 1A,C). Finally, the candidate markers were selected
by examining the volcano plot and considering a fold-change threshold
of 2 and p-value less than 0.05 (Figure 1B,D). The features contributing to the segregation
from both analyses were chosen for accurate mass-based identification.
Identities of some of these metabolites were confirmed by tandem mass
spectrometry (Supplementary Table 1, Supplementary
Figures S1–S3). The control mice showed a significant
decrease in the levels of metabolites like bilirubin, cytidine, and
adenosine monophosphate after radiation exposure. It has been reported
that bilirubin can protect lipid from peroxidation.[31] Therefore, a decrease in the levels of bilirubin can increase
the risk of formation of free radicals and increase lipid peroxidation
in the liver.[32−34] The levels of secondary bile acids such as sulfoglycolithocholate
increased significantly (Supplementary Table 2) after 24 h of radiation exposure. We also found dysregulation of
several lipid metabolites including sphingomyelins, phosphatidyl glycerol
(PG), phosphatidyl ethanolamine (PE), phosphatidyl serine (PS), and
ceramides in irradiated mice, after 4 days of radiation exposure.
Such metabolic perturbations emphasize the central role of liver in
regulating lipid metabolism.[35]
Table 1
Statistically Significant Features
in Mouse Liver Tissue after 8.5 Gy Radiation Doses at 24 h and 4 Day
Time Points
genotype
time
no. of features
total no. of features
post XCMS processing
Gfrp–/Cre+
24 h
1477
4 days
1473
Gfrp Tg, Gfrp+/Cre+
24 h
1481
4 days
1482
total
no. of significantly deregulated features
for different genotypes
Gfrp–/Cre+
24 h
50
4 days
71
Gfrp Tg, Gfrp+/Cre+
24 h
53
4 days
176
Top 50 metabolites of each set (lowest p-values, p < 0.05 and with a fold change
greater than two) were putatively identified using a mass-based database
search and later confirmed using tandem mass spectrometry.
Figure 1
Comparative metabolomic profiling in Gfrp–/Cre+
(control)
mice. (A,C) PLS-DA score plots of mice tissue samples analyzed in
the positive electrospray ionization mode comparing liver metabolite
profiles from mice that were euthanized 24 h or 4 days postradiation
exposure, respectively, to those that were sham irradiated. (B,D)
Volcano plot of liver metabolic profiles in the same order. Volcano
plot indicates the size of the biological effect (fold change) versus
the statistical significance of the result (statistical p-value). Each dot represents a metabolite plotted as a function of
fold change (log 2 (fold change), x-axis) and statistical
significance (−log 10 (p-value), y-axis). The pink dots represent selected putative markers with a p-value ≤0.05 and fold-change cutoff of > or <
2.
Top 50 metabolites of each set (lowest p-values, p < 0.05 and with a fold change
greater than two) were putatively identified using a mass-based database
search and later confirmed using tandem mass spectrometry.Comparative metabolomic profiling in Gfrp–/Cre+
(control)
mice. (A,C) PLS-DA score plots of mice tissue samples analyzed in
the positive electrospray ionization mode comparing liver metabolite
profiles from mice that were euthanized 24 h or 4 days postradiation
exposure, respectively, to those that were sham irradiated. (B,D)
Volcano plot of liver metabolic profiles in the same order. Volcano
plot indicates the size of the biological effect (fold change) versus
the statistical significance of the result (statistical p-value). Each dot represents a metabolite plotted as a function of
fold change (log 2 (fold change), x-axis) and statistical
significance (−log 10 (p-value), y-axis). The pink dots represent selected putative markers with a p-value ≤0.05 and fold-change cutoff of > or <
2.
Increased Oxidative Stress
Metabolites in Gfrp Knock-In Mice
after Radiation Exposure
Metabolomic profiling of transgenicmice was performed under the same conditions to delineate genotype-dependent
markers of radiation-induced tissue injury in liver. We have previously
reported that this mouse model exhibits higher basal oxidative stress
than the wild-type littermates.[18] LC-MS
data preprocessing using XCMS resulted in approximately 1480 features.
Multivariate analysis showed significant dysregulation of 53 features
after 24 h and 176 markers after 4 days of radiation exposure (Table 1). Difference detection analysis revealed intrinsic
changes in metabolic profiles after 24 h and 4 days of radiation exposure
(Figure 2). Some of these metabolites were
unambiguously identified by matching retention time and fragmentation
pattern (Supplementary Table 3 and Supplementary
Figures S4–S14) with standards while others were identified
by matching fragmentation pattern of the compounds against a spectral
library (Supplementary Figures S15–S16). Similar to the response of wild-type mice to irradiation, we found
dysregulation of a broad class of lipids as well as sugars in irradiated
transgenic mice after 24 h and 4 days. Furthermore, we observed a
significant increase in the level of bile acids including cholic acid
and its derivatives such as taurocholic acid and taurodeoxycholic
acid after 4 days and decreased levels of lipids such as of PC and
PI lipids after 24 h after irradiation (Figure 3). These results may support previous reports[34,37] that bile acid accumulation in the liver can enhance generation
of ROS and the formation of lipid peroxidation caused by radiation-induced
liver injury, and this increase is more pronounced in transgenic mice.
An increase in the levels of 12(13) - EpOME (epoxide of linoleic acid)
after 4 days of radiation exposure may be indicative of increased
inflammatory gene expression and increased oxidative stress leading
to neutrophil accumulation in the liver.[38] We also observed a significant increase in arachidonic acid levels
(C20:4), which is known to be an inflammatory mediator by activation
of phospholipases,[39,40] wherein the phospholipases hydrolyze
the sn-1 (PLA1) or sn-2 (PLA2) acyl bond of
phospholipids. For example, the fold change (irradiated/sham) after
4 days exposure to radiation of Lyso-PC (20:4) /PC (20:4/14:0) and
Lyso-PC (20:4)/ PC (18:1/20:4), were calculated to be 2.30 and 2.25,
respectively. These results suggest that exposure to radiation may
increase inflammation response in liver of transgenic mice. In addition,
glycerophospho-inositol (PI) levels were decreased significantly after
4 days exposure to radiation. PIs have an important role as signaling
molecules as mediators of immune responses in the body.[41] The depletion of PIs may exacerbate the inflammatory
response and cause liver damage and compromised immune response.
Figure 2
Liver
metabolomics of Gfrp knock-in mice shows distinct metabolite
profiles in response to radiation exposure. (A,C) PLS-DA score plots
comparing metabolite profiles of sham-treated mice with those that
were euthanized 24 h and 4 days post radiation exposure, respectively.
The R2 and Q2 values were 0.95 and 0.75 (A) and 0.96 and 0.45 (B), respectively.
(B,D) Volcano plot of liver cell extracts comparing irradiated and
sham groups of mice in the same order. The pink dots represent selected
putative markers with a p-value <0.05 and fold-change
cutoff of > or < 2.
Figure 3
Heat map showing differential abundance of metabolites in response
to different time intervals after radiation exposure in Gfrp control
and transgenic mice. (A–C) Metabolic profiles of liver tissue
from Gfrp–/Cre+ (control) mice that were sham irradiated 24
h and 4 days post radiation exposure, respectively. (D–F) Liver
metabolite profiles of Gfrp transgenic mice in the same order. Each
column represents a sample, and each row represents a metabolite.
The mean signal intensity is colored black; red indicates above-mean
intensity, green denotes below-mean intensity, and the degree of color
saturation reflects the magnitude of intensity relative to the mean.
Both p-values and fold changes are listed in Supplementary Tables 2 and 3.
Liver
metabolomics of Gfrp knock-in mice shows distinct metabolite
profiles in response to radiation exposure. (A,C) PLS-DA score plots
comparing metabolite profiles of sham-treated mice with those that
were euthanized 24 h and 4 days post radiation exposure, respectively.
The R2 and Q2 values were 0.95 and 0.75 (A) and 0.96 and 0.45 (B), respectively.
(B,D) Volcano plot of liver cell extracts comparing irradiated and
sham groups of mice in the same order. The pink dots represent selected
putative markers with a p-value <0.05 and fold-change
cutoff of > or < 2.Heat map showing differential abundance of metabolites in response
to different time intervals after radiation exposure in Gfrp control
and transgenic mice. (A–C) Metabolic profiles of liver tissue
from Gfrp–/Cre+ (control) mice that were sham irradiated 24
h and 4 days post radiation exposure, respectively. (D–F) Liver
metabolite profiles of Gfrptransgenic mice in the same order. Each
column represents a sample, and each row represents a metabolite.
The mean signal intensity is colored black; red indicates above-mean
intensity, green denotes below-mean intensity, and the degree of color
saturation reflects the magnitude of intensity relative to the mean.
Both p-values and fold changes are listed in Supplementary Tables 2 and 3.Although our initial aim was to understand the
genotype-dependent
response to radiation exposure, we asked whether these metabolites
show a common trend in both genotypes over time. For this purpose,
the differentially abundant metabolites from independent analyses
(Figures 1 and 2) were
visualized as a heat map (Figure 3). Interestingly,
GSSG levels were significantly increased 4 days following IR in the
livers of wild-type mice. This increase in GSSG levels was also accompanied
by increased levels of total GSH, keeping the GSSG of the irradiated
wild-type mice at the same levels of sham-irradiated wild-type animals.
This result suggests that wild-type mice responded to IR-induced oxidative
stress by up-regulating the levels of hepatic glutathione; thus maintaining
similar levels of GSSG observed in the control (sham-irradiated group).
Percentage of GSSG levels were not affected at the 24 h time point
in wild-type animals. On the other hand, at 24 h following IR, total
GSH levels were significantly decreased (more than 60%) in Gfrp knock-in
mouse livers, resulting in a 1.8 fold increase in % GSSG compared
to sham-irradiated Gfrptransgenic mice. Although the Gfrptransgenicmice recovered the majority (up to 84%) of their total glutathione
pool, the relative GSSG levels were still significantly higher (1.35
fold) than that of sham, 4 days after IR exposure. The dipeptide cysteinyl
glycine levels were also markedly decreased within 24 h of radiation
exposure in Gfrptransgenic mice. We also determined the change in
liver Gfrp expression after 24 h (day 1) and on day 4 after 8.5 Gy
of TBI using qRT-PCR in control mice. We observed a significant (p < 0.0001) increase in Gfrp expression in liver samples
of irradiated control Gfrpmice (n = 6) at 24 h compared
to unirradiated mice (n = 3). However, Gfrp expression
reached basal levels in irradiated control Gfrpmice (n = 6) by day 4 (p = 0.074) (Supplementary Figure 17). On the basis of these results, it
may be reasonable to assume that radiation causes an increase in Gfrp
expression, which is expected to suppress BH4 bioavailability, resulting
in higher oxidative stress in control Gfrpmice. On the other hand,
the transgenicGfrpmice can be expected to have higher susceptibility
to IR because of lower basal BH4 levels, which may contribute to IR-induced
oxidative damage compared to irradiated control Gfrp littermates.
Collectively, our data strongly suggest that Gfrp overexpression exacerbates
IR-induced liver tissue injury.
Increased Lipid Peroxidation
and Dysregulated Lipid Metabolism
in Gfrp Transgenic Mice
Based on the results of untargeted
metabolic profiling showing dysregulated lipid metabolism, we interrogated
lipid peroxidation as a consequence of radiation-mediated liver injury.
Statistical analysis using ANOVA revealed significant accumulation
of malondialdehyde in liver homogenates of control and transgenicmice as a function of time after radiation exposure (Figure 4). In addition, we performed stable-isotope-labeled
multiple reaction monitoring mass spectrometry to quantitatively assess
the differential abundance of lipids, amino acids, biogenic amines,
and hexose sugars in these mice before and after radiation. There
was a striking down regulation of Lyso PCs and carnitines of varying
carbon chain lengths in irradiated Gfrp knock-in mice within 24 h
(Supplementary Figure S18 and Supplementary Table
T4) and after 4 days of radiation exposure (Figure 5 and Supplementary Table 5) as compared to the control littermates, suggesting transgenicGfrpmice may not be able to protect IR-induced tissue damage as efficiently
as the control littermates. In order to address the observed intragroup
variability, we included more biological replicates in the treated
group, because we expected heterogeneity of the radiation response.
Interindividual variability has been well documented in previously
published metabolomic studies using mouse models.[25,42]
Figure 4
Increased
lipid peroxidation seen after radiation exposure. Decomposition
of unstable peroxides derived from polyunsaturated fatty acids in
the liver tissue homogenates obtained from sham or irradiated mice
was measured as malonaldehyde (MDA) equivalents, which is a carbonyl
product of lipid peroxides. The lipid peroxidation was found to increase
with time after radiation exposure and was genotype dependent. The
bars represent the mean ± SD of MDA in each group.
Figure 5
Targeted metabolomics shows down regulation of lipids
in irradiated
Gfrp transgenic mice. A panel of 25 metabolites showing statistically
significant difference in abundance between the sham and irradiated
groups of Gfrp transgenic mice are displayed. The metabolites were
hierarchically clustered by Ward algorithm using the Euclidian distance.
The metabolites are listed in Supplementary Table
4.
Increased
lipid peroxidation seen after radiation exposure. Decomposition
of unstable peroxides derived from polyunsaturated fatty acids in
the liver tissue homogenates obtained from sham or irradiated mice
was measured as malonaldehyde (MDA) equivalents, which is a carbonyl
product of lipid peroxides. The lipid peroxidation was found to increase
with time after radiation exposure and was genotype dependent. The
bars represent the mean ± SD of MDA in each group.Targeted metabolomics shows down regulation of lipids
in irradiated
Gfrptransgenic mice. A panel of 25 metabolites showing statistically
significant difference in abundance between the sham and irradiated
groups of Gfrptransgenic mice are displayed. The metabolites were
hierarchically clustered by Ward algorithm using the Euclidian distance.
The metabolites are listed in Supplementary Table
4.
Radiation Exposure Enhanced
Liver Fibrogenic Profile in Gfrp
Mice
Since ROS are known to induce modifications in cell
structure and function, we next asked whether radiation exposure causes
potential changes in liver fibrosis markers. Radiation induced histopathological
changes in the liver tissue are not apparent within the first few
weeks of radiation exposure, hence we performed RT-PCR-based gene
expression profiling for genes involved in facilitating tissue fibrosis,
at 24 h and 4 day time points following IR exposure. Our results show
that radiation induces the expression of molecular markers of liver
fibrosis at day 4 in both control and transgenic mice. However, the
expression of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), platelet-derived
growth factor (PDGF), serine peptidase inhibitor (SerpinA1a), and
endothelin 1 (EDN 1) was significantly higher in Gfrp knock-in mice
compared to the wild-type littermates at day 4 (Figure 6). Lipid peroxidation has been shown to increase VEGF expression.[43] Therefore, IR-induced lipid peroxidation in
Gfrptransgenic mice may up-regulate the expression of genes involved
in liver fibrosis development, thus resulting in an enhanced fibrogenic
profile in Gfrpmice.
Figure 6
Increased expression of genes associated with liver fibrosis
post
radiation exposure. RT-PCR-based gene expression profiling was performed
with tissue extracts obtained from Gfrp control and knock-in mice
with and without radiation exposure (see Materials
and Methods) to assess the expression of genes involved in
cellular processes that facilitate liver fibrosis.
Increased expression of genes associated with liver fibrosis
post
radiation exposure. RT-PCR-based gene expression profiling was performed
with tissue extracts obtained from Gfrp control and knock-in mice
with and without radiation exposure (see Materials
and Methods) to assess the expression of genes involved in
cellular processes that facilitate liver fibrosis.
Discussion
We recently generated
a Gfrp-overexpressing transgenicmouse model,
which shows decreased levels of tissue BH4 and blood GSH at basal
level, suggesting higher oxidative stress.[18] This could be attributed to Gfrp-overexpression-mediated suppression
of GTPCH1 enzymatic activity leading to a decrease in cellular BH4
levels, resulting in eNOS uncoupling. Uncoupled eNOS generates more
superoxide instead of nitric oxide, causing higher oxidative stress.[44] Furthermore, ionizing radiation is known to
induce oxidative stress by impairing the cellular antioxidant machinery
and generating more ROS. BH4 is an endogenous natural antioxidant,
and studies have shown that radiation causes a decrease in BH4 bioavailability,[17] which may result in higher oxidative stress.
In this study, we characterized metabolic changes in the liver following
irradiation in control and Gfrptransgenic knock-in mice. The goal
was to understand how radiation-mediated liver injury is manifested
at the small molecule metabolite level, while also discerning the
redox-status-dependent differences in the acute (24 h) and delayed
(4 days) radiation response and finally how this response is dictated
by the genotype.The liver is a critical organ for maintaining
both metabolic and
redox homeostasis. As a result, liver injury due to external insults
like radiation exposure can severely compromise carbohydrate, lipid,
and single carbon metabolism, ultimately leading to a myriad of pathophysiological
conditions, including imbalance in blood glucose levels as well as
cellular and brain toxicity. Liver has been reported to be a late
responding tissue to radiation stress, and hence we could expect subtle
changes, some of which are reversible while other manifest at later
time points.[45] There is, however, a lack
of understanding of specific metabolic changes in liver tissue after
exposure to IR. In addition, to the best of our knowledge, there are
no published studies on radiation-induced tissue injury or metabolomics
markers of liver damage using an in vivo model system of elevated
oxidative stress.Comparative untargeted metabolomic profiling
of the wild type mice
showed significant delayed effects after 4 days of radiation exposure
but not at 24 h. In contrast, the transgenic mice showed decreased
levels of reduced glutathione and increased glycocholic acid and N-arachidonoyl taurine within 24 h of radiation exposure,
indicating early onset of metabolic dysfunstion. After 4 days, the
transgenic mice exhibited elevated levels of FAD (indicating depletion
of reduced equivalents), accumulation of bile acids, and a decrease
in tissue levels of bilirubin, suggesting progressive liver damage.
It is likely that bile accumulation following radiation, which was
more significant in Gfrptransgenic mice, accentuates IR-induced oxidative
damage and liver tissue injury due to suppressed BH4 bioavailability.We did not find BH4 as a putative biomarker in the untargeted metabolomic
profiling experiments; this is expected because BH4 is a redox-sensitive
metabolite and needs special experimental conditions to be detected
and quantified by mass spectrometry.[46] Furthermore,
RT-PCR-based gene expression profiling showed that radiation-induced
liver fibrogenic potential was evident for both genotypes 4 days after
radiation exposure; however, it was much more pronounced in the transgenicmice. The liver tissue is primarily constituted of differentiated
cells; as such, radiation-induced changes of the liver tissue are
not apparent within the first few weeks.[19] In addition, liver fibrosis is a delayed effect of radiation; thus
hepatic architectural changes that are amenable to detection by histopathology
appear 6 to 10 weeks after total body irradiation in mice.[19,47] Mass-spectrometry-based quantitative lipidomics showed a significant
down regulation of Lyso PCs and carnitines after radiation exposure,
concomitant with a significant increase in lipid peroxidation levels
in the transgenic mice following radiation exposure. Thus, these results
lend credence to our hypothesis that the transgenic mice are more
susceptible to radiation stress. This susceptibility may result in
an increase in tissue injury and compromise their ability to mount
an appropriate response to combat radiation induced cellular and tissue
damage. In addition, our findings underscore the utility of using
a multimodal classifier (gene expression plus metabolomics) to assess
the early risk of radiation induced tissue injury (which would otherwise
be undetectable by histopathology), thus augmenting early therapeutic
interventions.Taken together, these data clearly indicate higher
levels of metabolic
markers of liver damage in Gfrp knock-in mice as compared to their
control littermates as a result of radiation exposure. The decrease
in bioavailability of BH4 and its biological implications causing
liver damage remain under investigation.
Authors: Christian Lanz; Andrew D Patterson; Josef Slavík; Kristopher W Krausz; Monika Ledermann; Frank J Gonzalez; Jeffrey R Idle Journal: Radiat Res Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 2.841
Authors: John B Tyburski; Andrew D Patterson; Kristopher W Krausz; Josef Slavík; Albert J Fornace; Frank J Gonzalez; Jeffrey R Idle Journal: Radiat Res Date: 2008-07 Impact factor: 2.841
Authors: Luis Condezo-Hoyos; Fatima Abderrahim; M Victoria Conde; Cristina Susín; Juan J Díaz-Gil; M Carmen González; Silvia M Arribas Journal: Free Radic Biol Med Date: 2008-12-16 Impact factor: 7.376
Authors: John B Tyburski; Andrew D Patterson; Kristopher W Krausz; Josef Slavík; Albert J Fornace; Frank J Gonzalez; Jeffrey R Idle Journal: Radiat Res Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 2.841
Authors: Thomas Illig; Christian Gieger; Guangju Zhai; Werner Römisch-Margl; Rui Wang-Sattler; Cornelia Prehn; Elisabeth Altmaier; Gabi Kastenmüller; Bernet S Kato; Hans-Werner Mewes; Thomas Meitinger; Martin Hrabé de Angelis; Florian Kronenberg; Nicole Soranzo; H-Erich Wichmann; Tim D Spector; Jerzy Adamski; Karsten Suhre Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2009-12-27 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Vladimir Ilievski; Jason M Kinchen; Ramya Prabhu; Fadi Rim; Lara Leoni; Terry G Unterman; Keiko Watanabe Journal: J Oral Biol (Northborough) Date: 2016-04-23
Authors: Katherine A Overmyer; Chanisa Thonusin; Nathan R Qi; Charles F Burant; Charles R Evans Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-02-06 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Barbora Šalovská; Hana Janečková; Ivo Fabrik; Radana Karlíková; Lucie Čecháková; Martin Ondrej; Marek Link; David Friedecký; Aleš Tichý Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-07-12 Impact factor: 3.240