| Literature DB >> 25223989 |
Canesso M C C, Lacerda N L, Ferreira C M, Gonçalves J L, Almeida D, Gamba C, Cassali G, Pedroso S H, Moreira C, Martins F S, Nicoli J R, Teixeira M M, Godard A L B, Vieira A T.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Increasing evidence suggest that the gut microbiota plays an important role in liver pathology after acute alcohol intake. The aim of our study was to investigate the roles played by commensal bacteria in alcohol-induced liver injury and in the dysbiosis caused by alcohol intake in germ-free mice, as well as the possibility of protection against alcohol-induced injuries in animals fed a high-fiber diet. For these purposes, germ-free and conventional mice were submitted to acute alcohol intake, consisting of administration of ethanol in their drinking water for 7 days, with a higher dose of alcohol administered on day 7.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25223989 PMCID: PMC4177591 DOI: 10.1186/s12866-014-0240-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Microbiol ISSN: 1471-2180 Impact factor: 3.605
Figure 1Influence of alcohol treatment on lipid accumulation in the livers of conventional and germ-free mice. Germ-free mice that underwent alcohol treatment did not show any lipids in their livers at 9 hours after the high dose of alcohol was administered on day 7 compared with the conventional mice, which showed an increase in their liver lipid content (A). Gut permeability was also evaluated by FITC-dextran fluorescence in the serum (B). Liver damage score (C). Representative pictures of the livers of the control and alcohol-fed (+ethanol), conventional (CV), and germ-free (GF) mice. Control CV and GF mice: absence of lesions; CV mice + ethanol: diffusely distributed lipid microvacuoles; GF mice + ethanol: focal and discrete hepatic microvacuoles (D). Hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) staining (200X). The results are the mean ± SEM (n = 5-7/group). This experiment is representative of at least three experiments. ##p < 0.01, conventional vs. conventional treated with alcohol.
Figure 2Influence of alcohol treatment on inflammatory parameters in the livers of germ-free and conventional mice. The number of neutrophils that had accumulated in the liver was estimated using an MPO assay (A). Levels of the pro-inflammatory cytokines CXCL-1/KC and IL-6 in the liver (B and C, respectively). The cytokine levels were measured by ELISA. The data represent the mean ± SEM (n = 5-7/group). #p < 0.05, ##p < 0.01, 9 hours vs. 0 hours after the high dose of alcohol was administered; **p < 0.01, conventional vs. germ-free mice.
Quantitative analysis of microbial populations in conventional mice treated with or without alcohol utilizing the feces cultivation-dependent method (CFU/g of feces)
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| ||
|
| Enterobacteria | 1.7 x 108 ± 1745 | 1.9 x 109 ± 1500 (***) |
|
|
| 1.0 x 105 ± 0.68 | 4.0 x 108 ± 3986 (*) |
|
| Total Aerobic Bacteria | 5.6 x 108 ± 2534 | 2.6 x 109 ± 6699 (*) |
|
| Total Anaerobic Bacteria | 6.4 x 108 ± 3640 | 2.1 x 109 ± 3987 (*) |
|
| Lactic Acid Bacteria | 4.9 x 108 ± 2593 | 2.7 x 109 ± 6071 (*) |
(The data represent the mean ± SEM, *p < 0.05; ***p < 0.001).
Figure 3Influence of alcohol treatment on inflammatory parameters in the livers of germ-free mice conventionalized with intestinal contents from conventional mice. The number of neutrophils that had accumulated in the liver was measured using an MPO assay (A). Pro-inflammatory cytokine (CXCL-1/KC [B] and IL-6 [C]) levels in the liver. The cytokine levels were measured using ELISA. Liver score (D). Representative pictures of the livers of the germ-free mice (GF Control), the germ-free mice that underwent alcohol treatment (GF + Ethanol), the germ-free mice colonized with intestinal contents from the conventional mice (CV → GF), and the germ-free mice colonized with intestinal contents from the conventional mice treated with alcohol (CV + Eth → GF) (E). PAS staining (200X). The data represent the mean ± SEM (n = 5-7/group). *p < 0.05; ***p < 0.001.
Figure 4Influence of alcohol treatment on the clinical score and inflammatory parameters in the small intestines of conventionalized mice. Clinical score (A). The number of neutrophils that accumulated in the small intestine was measured using an MPO assay (B). Levels of the pro-inflammatory cytokine CXCL-1/KC in the small intestine (C). The cytokine levels were measured by ELISA. The data represent the mean ± SEM (n = 5-7/group). *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01 and ***p < 0.001.
Figure 5Influence of alcohol treatment on intestinal permeability in conventional mice treated with experimental diets. The ovalbumin levels in the serum were determined as a measure of gut permeability (A). The IL-1β levels in the small intestine (B) were measured by ELISA. Liver damage score (C). The CV mice (control) had no hepatic lesions, the ethanol-fed CV mice presented diffuse hepatic microvacuolation, and the alcohol-fed CV mice that received a high-fiber diet exhibited discrete microvacuolation (D). H&E staining (200X). The data represent the mean ± SEM (n = 5-7/group). #p < 0.05, the conventional mice that received a low-fiber diet and underwent alcohol treatment (LF + Ethanol) vs. the conventional mice received a low-fiber diet and were not treated with alcohol (LF Control); ***p < 0.001, the conventional mice that were treated with alcohol and received a low-fiber diet (LF + Ethanol) vs. the conventional mice that were treated with alcohol and received a high-fiber diet (HF + Ethanol).