| Literature DB >> 25684573 |
Jing-Hua Wang1, Shambhunath Bose2, Hyung-Gu Kim3, Kyung-Sun Han3, Hojun Kim3.
Abstract
Accumulating evidence suggests the anti-inflammatory and anti-obesity activities of Rhizoma Atractylodis Macrocephalae (RAM). Here, we evaluated the anti-obesity impact of unfermented (URAM) versus fermented RAM (FRAM) using both in vitro and in vivo models. Both URAM and FRAM exhibited marked anti-inflammatory, anti-adipogenic, and anti-obesity activities, and modulation of the gut microbial distribution. However, FRAM, compared to URAM, resulted in more efficient suppression of NO production and normalization of transepithelial electrical resistance in LPS-treated RAW 264.7 and HCT 116 cells, respectively. Compared to URAM, FRAM more effectively reduced the adipose tissue weight; ameliorated the serum triglyceride and aspartate transaminase levels; restored the serum HDL level and intestinal epithelial barrier function in the LPS control group. The relative abundance of Bifidobacterium and Akkermansia as well as Bacteriodetes/Firmicutes ratio in the gut of the LPS control group was significantly enhanced by both URAM and FRAM. However, FRAM, but not URAM, resulted in a significant increase in the distribution of Bacteriodetes and Lactobacillus in the gut of the HFD + LPS group. Our results suggest that FRAM with probiotics can exert a greater anti-obesity effect than URAM, which is probably mediated at least in part via regulation of the intestinal microbiota and gut permeability.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25684573 PMCID: PMC4329570 DOI: 10.1038/srep08391
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Comparison of body and fat masses
| High Fat Diet | − | + | + | + | + | + |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LPS (0.75 mg/kg) | − | − | + | + | + | + |
| Groups | Normal | HFD control | LPS control | URAM | FRAM | Colostrum |
| Body mass (g) | 355 ± 27 | 465 ± 33 | 457 ± 18 | 409 ± 35 | 384 ± 53 | 398 ± 59 |
| Abdominal fat (g) | 6.1 ± 1.2 | 21.1 ± 9.0 | 24.1 ± 4.9 | 16.3 ± 6.6 | 15.7 ± 4.8 | 13.0 ± 4.2 |
| Rela. of Abf (%) | 1.9 ± 0.4 | 5.0 ± 1.7 | 5.3 ± 1.2 | 3.9 ± 2.1 | 3.8 ± 1.1 | 3.1 ± 1.0 |
| Epididymal fat (g) | 5.4 ± 0.9 | 11.4 ± 3.0 | 12.7 ± 3.4 | 11.4 ± 3.4 | 9.9 ± 2.4 | 9.5 ± 3.0 |
| Rela. of Epf (%) | 1.5 ± 0.2 | 2.5 ± 0.6 | 2.8 ± 0.8 | 2.8 ± 1.1 | 2.7 ± 0.7 | 2.3 ± 0.6 |
| Total fat (g) | 11.5 ± 1.5 | 32.4 ± 11.6 | 36.7 ± 7.2 | 27.8 ± 9.8 | 22.8 ± 4.0 | 22.6 ± 7.0 |
| Rela. of fat (%) | 3.3 ± 0.5 | 7.0 ± 2.6 | 8.1 ± 1.8 | 6.8 ± 3.0 | 6.0 ± 1.4 | 5.6 ± 1.1 |
Abbreviations: Rela. of Abf, relative weight of abdominal fat; Rela. of Epf, relative weight of epididymal fat; Rela. of fat, relative weight of total fat; URAM, unfermented Rhizoma Atractylodis Macrocephalae; FRAM, fermented Rhizoma Atractylodis Macrocephalae. Body weights were measured after 18 h of LPS injection before sacrifice, and relative fat weight was calculated as fat weight/body weight. Data were expressed as Mean ± SD and statistically evaluated using one way ANOVA followed by LSD pos-hoc test.
##P < 0.01, compared to the normal group;
*P < 0.05,
**P < 0.01 compared to the HFD control group;
$$P < 0.01, compared to the normal group;
&P < 0.05,
&&P < 0.01 compared to the LPS control group (n = 8).
Comparison of serum biochemical parameters
| High Fat Diet | − | + | + | + | + | + |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LPS (0.75 mg/kg) | − | − | + | + | + | + |
| Groups | Normal | HFD control | LPS control | URAM | FRAM | Colostrum |
| TC (mg/dl) | 46.1 ± 5.4 | 67.1 ± 14.7 | 82.2 ± 18.2 | 64.7 ± 10.8 | 60.4 ± 10.5 | 65.6 ± 11.1 |
| HDL (mg/dl) | 38.2 ± 4.9 | 29.6 ± 5.9 | 21.5 ± 4.4 | 26.7 ± 5.3 | 28.7 ± 6.4 | 26.4 ± 5.2 |
| TG (mg/dl) | 28.1 ± 7.8 | 42.1 ± 12.7 | 78.2 ± 33.3 | 55.8 ± 10.8 | 42.8 ± 6.3 | 42.7 ± 17.8 |
| AST (IU/l) | 27.2 ± 9.3 | 50.4 ± 25.6 | 124.4 ± 63.4 | 84.6 ± 30.9 | 58.6 ± 22.3 | 13.2 ± 1.6 |
Abbreviations: TC, total cholesterol; HDL, high density lipoprotein; TG, triglyceride; AST, aspartate transaminase; URAM, unfermented Rhizoma Atractylodis Macrocephalae; FRAM, fermented Rhizoma Atractylodis Macrocephalae. Data were expressed as Mean ± SD and statistically evaluated using one way ANOVA followed by LSD pos-hoc test.
#P < 0.05, compared to the normal group;
*P < 0.05,
**P < 0.01 compared to the HFD control group;
$P < 0.05,
$$P < 0.01, compared to the normal group;
&P < 0.05,
&&P < 0.01 compared to the LPS control group (n = 8).
Figure 1The protective effects of URAM and FRAM on the intestinal permeability and endotoxin-insult in HFD-fed rats treated with LPS.
(A) Following termination of the experimental schedule, the animals were fasted for 12 h with access to water ad libitum. Subsequently, 1.0 ml of lactulose-mannitol solution (containing 66 mg/ml lactulose and 50 mg/ml mannitol) was administered to the animals orally. After another 20 h of fasting, urine samples were collected to determine the level of lactulose and mannitol as described in the Materials and methods section. Data are expressed as a ratio of lactulose to mannitol. (B) After termination of the experimental schedule, blood was collected from the animals and the serum endotoxin level was determined as described in the Methods section. Data are expressed as the mean ± SD (n = 8). Data with different letters are significantly different (P < 0.05) according to post hoc one way ANOVA analysis.
Figure 2Anti-inflammatory effect of URAM and FRAM in HFD-fed rats treated with LPS.
After termination of the experimental schedule, blood was collected from the animals and the serum proinflammatory cytokine levels were determined as described in the Methods section. Data are expressed as the mean ± SD (n = 8). Data with different letters are significantly different (P < 0.05) according to post hoc one way ANOVA analysis.
Figure 3PCR-denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis fingerprinting and PCA analysis of rat stools.
(A) After termination of the experimental schedule, the animals were fasted for 12 h with access to water ad libitum. After another 20 h of fasting, the stool samples were collected and the fecal microbial communities were analyzed by denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis as described in the Methods section. (B) PCA of the data was performed based on distance matrix (two-dimensional array) to further evaluate the similarity between bacterial communities.
Figure 4The impact of URAM and FRAM on the relative abundance of metagenomic DNA (gene-encoding 16S rRNA) of vital intestinal microbes in stools of HFD-fed rats treated with LPS.
Following termination of the experimental schedule, the animals were fasted for 12 h with access to water ad libitum. After another 20 h of fasting, the stool samples were collected and the abundance of the 16S rRNA gene of the bacterial strains was determined as described in the Methods section. The results are expressed as normalized fold values relative to the normal group. Data are expressed as the mean ± SD (n = 8). Data with different letters are significantly different (P < 0.05) according to post hoc one way ANOVA analysis.