| Literature DB >> 25309587 |
Suriya Kumari Ramiah1, Goh Yong Meng2, Tan Sheau Wei3, Yeap Swee Keong3, Mahdi Ebrahimi1.
Abstract
Conjugated linoleic acids (CLA) act as an important ligand for nuclear receptors in adipogenesis and fat deposition in mammals and avian species. This study aimed to determine whether similar effects are plausible on avian abdominal fat adipocyte size, as well as abdominal adipogenic transcriptional level. CLA was supplemented at different levels, namely, (i) basal diet without CLA (5% palm oil) (CON), (ii) basal diet with 2.5% CLA and 2.5% palm oil (LCLA), and (iii) basal diet with 5% CLA (HCLA).The content of cis-9, trans-11 CLA was between 1.69- and 2.3-fold greater (P < 0.05) than that of trans-10, cis-12 CLA in the abdominal fat of the LCLA and HCLA group. The adipogenic capacity of the abdominal fat depot in LCLA and HCLA fed chicken is associated with a decreased proportion of adipose cells and monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFA). The transcriptional level of adipocyte protein (aP2) and peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma (PPARγ) was downregulated by 1.08- to 2.5-fold in CLA supplemented diets, respectively. It was speculated that feeding CLA to broiler chickens reduced adipocyte size and downregulated PPARγ and aP2 that control adipocyte cellularity. Elevation of CLA isomers into their adipose tissue provides a potential CLA-rich source for human consumption.Entities:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25309587 PMCID: PMC4189438 DOI: 10.1155/2014/137652
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PPAR Res Impact factor: 4.964
Ingredient and chemical composition of diet.
| Ingredient (% DM) | Starter (1–21 days) | Finisher (22–42 days) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CON | LCLA | HCLA | CON | LCLA | HCLA | |
| Corn | 51.17 | 51.17 | 51.17 | 58.9 | 58.9 | 58.9 |
| Soybean | 40.56 | 40.56 | 40.56 | 32.22 | 32.22 | 32.22 |
| Palm oil | 5 | 2.5 | — | 5 | 2.5 | — |
| Common salt | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 |
| 1Vitamin premix | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.05 |
| 1Mineral premix | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.05 |
| DL-methionine | 0.26 | 0.26 | 0.26 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| Lysine | — | — | — | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 |
| 2Chemical composition | ||||||
| Crude protein (% DM) | 22.00 | 22.00 | 22.00 | 20.5 | 20.5 | 20.5 |
| Metabolizable energy (ME) (Kcal/kg) | 3080 | 3080 | 3080 | 3150 | 3150 | 3150 |
| Phosphorus (% DM) | 0.45 | 0.45 | 0.45 | 0.42 | 0.42 | 0.42 |
| Calcium (% DM) | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 0.9 |
| Methionine (% DM) | 0.55 | 0.55 | 0.55 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 |
| Lysine (% DM) | 1.20 | 1.20 | 1.20 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Na (% DM) | 0.20 | 0.20 | 0.20 | 0.15 | 0.15 | 0.15 |
CON: control; LCLA: low conjugated linoleic acid; HCLA: high conjugated linoleic acid.
1Premixes contributed the following nutrients per kilogram of complete feed: vitamin A, 2300 IU; vitamin D3, 400 IU; vitamin E, 1.8 mg; vitamin B12, 3.5 mg; riboflavin, 1.4 mg; pantothenic acid, 2 mg; nicotinic acid, 7 mg; pyridoxine, 0.25 mg; folic acid, 0.15 mg; menadione, 0.3 mg; thiamin, 0.15 mg; manganese oxide, 35 mg; ferrous sulfate, 35 mg; zinc oxide, 30 mg; copper sulfate, 60 mg; cobalt carbonate, 5 mg; potassium iodine, 0.6 mg; selenium vanadate, 0.09 mg. CLA used in this study was Lutrell pure, BASF, Germany, which contained 60% of both CLA isomers. Dietary inclusion of CLA 5% and 2.5% will be equal to 3.0% and 1.5% of both CLA isomers respectively.
2Calculated values.
Fatty acid composition (g/kg feed) of experimental diets.
| Fatty acids | Starter (1–21 days) | Finisher (22–42 days) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CON | LCLA | HCLA | CON | LCLA | HCLA | |
| C12:0 | 0.73 | 0.48 | 0.23 | 0.76 | 0.51 | 0.26 |
| C14:0 | 3.19 | 1.69 | 0.19 | 3.23 | 1.72 | 0.22 |
| C16:0 | 23.00 | 15.72 | 8.43 | 23.34 | 16.06 | 8.78 |
| C16:1 | 0.53 | 0.28 | 0.03 | 0.53 | 0.28 | 0.03 |
| C18:0 | 2.71 | 14.52 | 26.32 | 2.81 | 14.62 | 26.42 |
| C18:1n-9 | 29.74 | 23.53 | 17.30 | 31.33 | 25.12 | 18.90 |
| C18:2n-6 | 12.00 | 10.05 | 8.03 | 12.18 | 10.20 | 8.20 |
| C18:3n-3 | 0.79 | 0.54 | 0.29 | 0.82 | 0.57 | 0.32 |
|
| 0.00 | 2.97 | 5.97 | 0.00 | 3.00 | 5.95 |
|
| 0.00 | 2.92 | 5.90 | 0.00 | 2.93 | 5.91 |
| aTotal SFA | 29.63 | 32.41 | 35.18 | 30.13 | 32.91 | 35.69 |
| bTotal MUFA | 30.27 | 23.81 | 17.34 | 31.86 | 25.40 | 18.94 |
| cTotal n-3 PUFA | 0.79 | 0.54 | 0.29 | 0.82 | 0.57 | 0.32 |
| dTotal n-6 PUFA | 12.00 | 10.05 | 8.03 | 12.18 | 10.20 | 8.20 |
| Total PUFA | 12.79 | 10.59 | 8.33 | 13.00 | 10.77 | 8.52 |
| en-6 : n-3FAR | 15.16 | 18.54 | 27.53 | 14.77 | 17.75 | 25.27 |
| PUFA : SFA | 0.43 | 0.33 | 0.24 | 0.43 | 0.33 | 0.24 |
| fTotal CLA | 0.00 | 5.89 | 11.86 | 0.00 | 5.93 | 11.86 |
CON: control; LCLA: low conjugated linoleic acid; HCLA: high conjugated linoleic acid.
aTotal SFA = sum of C12:0 + C14:0 + C16:0 + C18:0.
bTotal MUFA = sum of C16:1 + C18:1n-9.
cTotal n-3 PUFA = sum of C18:3n-3.
dTotal n-6 PUFA = sum of C18:2n-6.
en-6 : n-3 fatty acid ratio (FAR) = sum of C18:2n-6 ÷ sum of C18:3n-3.
fTotal CLA = sum of cis-9, trans-11 CLA + trans-10, cis-12 CLA.
Sequences of forward and reverse primers for real-time PCR.
| Genes | Sense primer (5′-3′) | Size | Annealing temperature | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PPAR | F-AGGCCAAGTTGAAAGCAGA | 217 | 60 |
K |
| PPAR | F-GACCTTAATTGTCGCATCCAT | 237 | 61 | Zhang et al. [ |
| aP2 | F-GAGTTTGATGAGACCACAGCAGA | 107 | 63 | Sato et al. [ |
| GAPDH | F-TGAAAGTCGGAGTCAACGGATT | 81 | 60 |
Ojano-Dirain et al. [ |
|
| F-ATGAAGCCCAGAGCAAAAGA | 223 | 62 | K |
F: forward.
R: reverse.
Fatty acid profile of the abdominal fat of broiler chicken (percentage of total identified fatty acids) across treatment groups.
| Fatty acids | CON | LCLA | HCLA | SEM |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C12:0 | 0.10 | 0.18 | 0.23 | 0.039 | 0.379 |
| C14:0 | 0.97b | 0.91b | 1.11a | 0.028 | 0.004 |
| C16:0 | 29.54b | 28.88b | 32.39a | 0.500 | 0.002 |
| C16:1 | 4.22 | 4.03 | 3.51 | 0.160 | 0.143 |
| C18:0 | 7.80b | 7.32b | 14.16a | 0.755 | <0.0001 |
| C18:1n-9 | 40.67a | 40.30a | 27.96b | 1.370 | <0.0001 |
| C18:2n-6 | 16.03 | 15.81 | 15.33 | 0.199 | 0.305 |
| C18:3n-3 | 0.44b | 0.47b | 0.89a | 0.057 | <0.0001 |
|
| 0.00c | 0.92b | 2.56a | 0.214 | <0.0001 |
|
| 0.00c | 0.39b | 1.51a | 0.131 | <0.0001 |
| C20:4n-6 | 0.21 | 0.78 | 0.35 | 1.404 | 0.197 |
| aTotal SFA | 38.42b | 37.30b | 47.88a | 1.230 | <0.0001 |
| bTotal MUFA | 44.90a | 44.34a | 31.47b | 1.472 | <0.0001 |
| cTotal n-3 PUFA | 0.44b | 0.47b | 0.89a | 0.057 | <0.0001 |
| dTotal n-6 PUFA | 16.25 | 16.59 | 15.68 | 0.217 | 0.192 |
| Total PUFA | 16.69 | 17.06 | 16.57 | 0.223 | 0.632 |
| en-6 : n-3 ratio | 36.93a | 35.29a | 17.61b | 7.392 | 0.033 |
| PUFA : SFA ratio | 0.45a | 0.46a | 0.35b | 0.001 | 0.0007 |
| fTotal CLA | 0.00c | 1.30b | 4.07a | 0.344 | <0.001 |
CON: control; LCLA: low conjugated linoleic acid; HCLA: high conjugated linoleic acid.
The data are expressed as the percentage of total identified fatty acids.
aTotal SFA = sum of C12:0 + C14:0 + C16:0 + C18:0.
bTotal MUFA = sum of C16:1 + C18:1n-9.
cTotal n-3 PUFA = C18:3n-3.
dTotal n-6 PUFA = sum of C18:2n-6 + C20:4n-6.
en-6 : n-3 FAR = sum of (C18:2n-6 + C20:4n-6) ÷ (C18:3n-3).
fTotal CLA = sum of cis-9, trans-11 CLA + trans-10, cis-12 CLA.
Data presented as mean with pooled SEM (n = 10). a,bMean values within a row with no common superscript differ significantly (P < 0.05).
Figure 1Comparison of PPARα relative transcriptional level in the abdominal fat of chickens fed diets with CON, LCLA, and HCLA. Values were normalized with reference genes, β-actin, and GAPDH. Then, treated samples were expressed relative to transcriptional level of CON group. Values are mean ±1 standard error (n = 10). CON: without CLA; LCLA: low CLA; HCLA: high CLA. LCLA and HCLA found not to be of significant difference compared to CON group (P > 0.05).
Figure 2Comparison of PPARγ relative transcriptional level in the abdominal fat of chickens fed diets with CON, LCLA, and HCLA. Values were normalized with reference genes, β-actin, and GAPDH. Then, treated samples were expressed relative to transcriptional level of CON group. Values are mean ±1 standard error (n = 10). CON: without CLA; LCLA: low CLA; HCLA: high CLA. Letter in superscript indicated a significant difference compared with the CON group (P < 0.05).
Figure 3Comparison of aP2 relative transcriptional level in the abdominal fat of chickens fed diets with CON, LCLA, and HCLA. Values were normalized with reference genes, β-actin, and GAPDH. Then, treated samples were expressed relative to transcriptional level of CON group. Values are mean ±1 standard error (n = 10). CON: without CLA; LCLA: low CLA; HCLA: high CLA. Letter in superscript indicated a significant difference compared with the CON group (P < 0.05).
Figure 4Effect of dietary conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) on adipocyte area distribution in the abdominal fat in chickens fed with CON (control), LCLA (low conjugated linoleic acid), and HCLA (high conjugated linoleic acid) for 6 weeks. Data represents the mean of cell area. Data are presented as mean ± SEM. Different superscripts within a cell size range denote significant differences (P < 0.05).
Figure 5Effects of dietary conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) on adipocyte diameter in chickens fed with CON (control), LCLA (low conjugated linoleic acid), and HCLA (high conjugated linoleic acid) for 6 weeks. Data represent the mean of cell diameter. Data are presented as mean ± SEM. Different superscripts among bars denote significant differences (P < 0.05).
Figure 6Effects of dietary conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) on adipocyte cell number in chickens fed with CON (control), LCLA (low conjugated linoleic acid), and HCLA (high conjugated linoleic acid) for 6 weeks. Data represents the mean of cell number. Data are presented as mean ± SEM. Different superscripts between bars denote significant differences (P < 0.05).