| Literature DB >> 26300958 |
Rui-Bing Feng1,2, Chun-Lin Fan1,2, Qing Liu1,2, Zhong Liu3, Wei Zhang1,2, Yao-Lan Li1,2, Wei Tang1,2, Ying Wang1,2, Man-Mei Li1,2, Wen-Cai Ye1,2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ilex latifolia Thunb. (Da Ye Dong Qing) is used for weight loss and for its antidiabetic effects. This study aims to investigate the beneficial effects and potential mechanisms of action of crude triterpenoid saponins (CTS) from I. latifolia in a mouse model of high-fat diet (HFD)-induced non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD).Entities:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26300958 PMCID: PMC4544818 DOI: 10.1186/s13020-015-0054-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Chin Med ISSN: 1749-8546 Impact factor: 5.455
Primer sequences used for real-time PCR
| Genes | Primer sequences | Length | |
|---|---|---|---|
| HMGCS | Forward | (5′-3′) GCCGTGAACTGGGTCGAA | 77 bp |
| Reverse | (5′-3′) GCATATATAGCAATGTCTCCTGCAA | ||
| ACC | Forward | (5′-3′) TGAAGGGCTACCTCTAATG | 182 bp |
| Reverse | (5′-3′) TCACAACCCAAGAACCAC | ||
| SCD-1 | Forward | (5′-3′) CCGGAGACCCCTTAGATCGA | 190 bp |
| Reverse | (5′-3′) TAGCCTGTAAAAGATTTCTGCAAACC | ||
| SREBP-2 | Forward | (5′-3′)GCGTTCTGGAGACCATGGA | 131 bp |
| Reverse | (5′-3′) ACAAAGTTGCTCTGAAAACAAATCA | ||
| SREBP-1c | Forward | (5′-3′)TGTTGGCATCCTGCTATCTG | 189 bp |
| Reverse | (5′-3′) AGGGAAAGCTTTGGGGTCTA | ||
| FAS | Forward | (5′-3′) GCTGCGGAAACTTCAGGAAAT | 84 bp |
| Reverse | (5′-3′) AGAGACGTGTCACTCCTGGACTT | ||
| GAPDH | Forward | (5′-3′) AGGTCGGTGTGAACGGATTTG | 123 bp |
| Reverse | (5′-3′) TGTAGACCATGTAGTTGAGGTCA | ||
Fig. 1Total ion chromatograms of CTS from I. latifolia (a) and 12 reference compounds (b) detected in negative ion mode.
The chemical structures and contents of 12 triterpenoid saponins in the extract of I. latifolia
| No. | Constituents | Structure | Experimental negative QTOF-MS (m/z)/error (ppm) | Weight of concentration (mg/g) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Type | R1 | R2 | R3 | R4 | R5 | = | ||||
| 1 | Kudinoside O | A | S4 | OH | H | CH3 | S2 | 12 (13) | 1381.6641 [M − H]−/0.31 | 50.63 |
| 2 | Kudinoside N | A | S4 | OH | CH3 | H | S2 | 12 (13) | 1381.6632 [M − H]−/0.96 | 3.45 |
| 3 | Latifoloside H | A | S3 | OH | H | CH3 | S2 | 12 (13) | 1265.6165 [M + COOH]−/0.56 | 104.17 |
| 4 | Latifoloside G | A | S3 | OH | CH3 | H | S2 | 12 (13) | 1265.6173 [M + COOH]−/−0.09 | 45.76 |
| 5 | Kudinoside G | A | S3 | OH | CH3 | H | S1 | 12 (13) | 1119.5595 [M + COOH]−/−0.21 | 65.84 |
| 6 | Kudinoside C | B | S4 | H | OH | – | – | 13 (18) | 1133.5375 [M + COOH]−/0.96 | 95.57 |
| 7 | Kudinoside A | B | S3 | H | OH | – | – | 13 (18) | 971.4853 [M + COOH]−/0.45 | 117.97 |
| 8 | Kudinoside E | B | S4 | H | H | – | – | 11 (12), 13 (18) | 1115.5287 [M + COOH]−/−0.68 | 78.31 |
| 9 | Kudinoside F | B | S3 | OH | H | – | – | 13 (18) | 971.4848 [M + COOH]−/0.88 | 61.16 |
| 10 | Latifoloside Q | A | S3 | H | H | CH3 | S2 | 12 (13) | 1249.6226 [M + COOH]−/−0.27 | 33.99 |
| 11 | Kudinoside D | B | S3 | H | H | – | – | 11 (12), 13 (18) | 953.4759 [M + COOH]−/−0.82 | 196.68 |
| 12 | Ilekudinoside G | B | S4 | H | H | – | – | 12 (13) | 1117.5430 [M + COOH]−/0.58 | 7.50 |
| Crude triterpenoid saponins | 861.03 | |||||||||
Effects of CTS on body weight, liver weight, and adipose tissue weight of mice fed with HFD
| Parameter | Control | HFD | HFD + Simvastatin | HFD + CTS-100 | HFD + CTS-200 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Initial body weight (g) | 21.10 ± 1.62 | 21.22 ± 1.21 | 20.31 ± 1.03 | 21.56 ± 2.02 | 21.64 ± 1.36 |
| Final body weight (g) | 30.35 ± 3.06 | 40.39 ± 3.02## | 35.63 ± 4.63△ | 37.97 ± 4.13* | 37.68 ± 2.91* |
| Body weight gain (g) | 9.25 ± 0.91 | 19.17 ± 0.32# | 15.32 ± 0.53△ | 16.41 ± 0.44* | 14.89 ± 0.46* |
| Adipose tissuea weight (g) | 0.96 ± 0.23 | 1.67 ± 0.49## | 1.24 ± 0.29△ | 1.37 ± 0.64 | 1.43 ± 0.54* |
| Ratio of adipose tissue and body weight (%) | 3.22 ± 0.90 | 4.29 ± 1.55## | 3.51 ± 1.49△ | 3.67 ± 2.16 | 3.84 ± 1.46* |
| Liver weight (g) | 1.45 ± 0.14 | 2.26 ± 0.17## | 2.02 ± 0.39△△ | 2.15 ± 0.22 | 2.09 ± 0.39** |
| Ratio of liver and body weight (%) | 4.81 ± 0.60 | 5.74 ± 0.71## | 5.50 ± 1.47△ | 5.70 ± 0.70 | 5.63 ± 1.30* |
Adipose tissuea: including omental adipose tissue, perirenal adipose tissue, and epididymal adipose tissue.
Values were expressed as the mean ± SD (n = 10). # P < 0.05, ## P < 0.01, HFD vs. control. △ P < 0.05, △△ P < 0.01, HFD vs. simvastatin treatment. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, HFD vs. CTS treatment.
Effects of CTS on plasma parameters in mice fed with HFD
| Parameter | Control | HFD | HFD + Simvastatin | HFD + CTS-100 | HFD + CTS-200 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TG (mmol/L) | 1.37 ± 0.46 | 1.98 ± 0.54# | 1.04 ± 0.26△△ | 1.29 ± 0.34** | 1.21 ± 0.15** |
| TC (mmol/dL) | 2.48 ± 0.23 | 6.27 ± 1.38## | 5.27 ± 0.20△ | 5.79 ± 0.60 | 5.59 ± 0.70* |
| LDL-C (mmol/dL) | 0.32 ± 0.19 | 2.80 ± 0.77## | 1.95 ± 0.45△ | 2.53 ± 0.28 | 2.09 ± 0.39** |
| HDL-c (mmol/dL) | 1.33 ± 0.46 | 0.95 ± 0.10# | 1.77 ± 0.66△ | 1.25 ± 0.30** | 1.36 ± 0.08** |
| Glucose (mmol/L) | 8.61 ± 1.34 | 9.99 ± 1.56## | 8.76 ± 1.43△ | 9.80 ± 1.53 | 9.60 ± 1.21 |
| Insulin (nmol/L) | 22.63 ± 5.93 | 36.56 ± 7.77## | 25.53 ± 7.03△ | 26.43 ± 9.71* | 24.52 ± 6.20** |
Values were expressed as the mean ± SD (n = 10). # P < 0.05, ## P < 0.01, HFD vs. control. △ P < 0.05,△△ P < 0.01, HFD vs. simvastatin treatment. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, HFD vs. CTS treatment.
Fig. 2Effects of CTS on the oral glucose tolerance test (GTT) and insulin tolerance test (ITT). The high-fat diet (HFD)-fed mice were fasted overnight and treated with oral intragastric administration of 2 g/kg glucose or a subcutaneous injection of 0.75 U/kg insulin. Simvastatin and CTS reduced the glucose curve induced by glucose and insulin, leading to the eventual improvement in glucose tolerance and insulin resistance. a Effects of CTS on glucose tolerance in blood. b Effects of CTS on insulin tolerance in blood. c, d Quantitative analysis of the area under the curve (AUC) from the GTT and ITT. The results are represented as the mean ± SD (n = 10).
Effects of CTS on FFA, MDA, GSH and ATPase in the livers of mice fed with HFD
| Parameter | Control | HFD | HFD + Simvastatin | HFD + CTS-100 | HFD + CTS-200 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FFA (μmol/g protein) | 61.05 ± 12.49 | 94.70 ± 15.63## | 91.73 ± 13.50△ | 93.89 ± 10.81* | 79.87 ± 11.18** |
| MDA (nmol/mg protein) | 0.69 ± 0.34 | 3.19 ± 0.33## | 1.88 ± 0.44△△ | 1.68 ± 0.54** | 1.50 ± 0.38** |
| GSH (μg/mg protein) | 2.65 ± 0.53 | 1.05 ± 0.24## | 2.80 ± 0.59△△ | 2.55 ± 0.65** | 2.61 ± 0.50** |
| Na+-K+-ATPase (mmol pi/g/h) | 1.55 ± 0.19 | 1.79 ± 018# | 1.57 ± 0.26△ | 1.68 ± 0.10 | 1.60 ± 0.26* |
| Ca2+-Mg2+-ATPase (mmol pi/g/h) | 1.65 ± 0.13 | 1.76 ± 0.11# | 1.31 ± 0.14△ | 1.55 ± 0.14** | 1.42 ± 0.31** |
Values were expressed as the mean ± SD (n = 10). # P < 0.05, ## P < 0.01, HFD vs. control. △ P < 0.05, △△ P < 0.01, HFD vs. simvastatin treatment. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, HFD vs. CTS treatment.
Effects of CTS on plasma ALT and AST activities in mice fed with HFD
| Parameter | Control | HFD | HFD + Simvastatin | HFD + CTS-100 | HFD + CTS-200 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ALT (KAIU/L) | 43.15 ± 3.98 | 62.61 ± 14.81## | 51.34 ± 15.81△△ | 50.94 ± 15.95** | 40.74 ± 7.90** |
| AST (KAIU/L) | 104.85 ± 26.20 | 101.74 ± 22.86 | 127.65 ± 11.83△△ | 96.24 ± 10.18 | 98.87 ± 12.61 |
Values were expressed as the mean ± SD (n = 10). # P < 0.05, ## P < 0.01, HFD vs. control. △ P < 0.05,△△ P < 0.01, HFD vs. simvastatin treatment. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, HFD vs. CTS treatment.
Fig. 3Effects of CTS on liver injury and hepatic lipid content in HFD-fed mice. a Oil red O staining (×400) of the liver sections. Arrows indicate steatosis induced by HFD feeding. b The quantitative analysis of triglyceride (TG) and total cholesterol (TC) contents in livers. The HFD-fed mice were administered two concentrations of CTS (100 and 200 mg/kg/days) or the positive control simvastatin 10 mg/kg/d for 8 weeks. The results are represented as the mean ± SD (n = 10).
Fig. 4Effects of CTS on gene and protein expression of lipogenic and cholesterol-related synthetic enzymes. a The gene expression of lipogenic enzymes (SREBP-1c SCD1, ACC, FAS) in the livers of mice was suppressed by CTS-200 mg/kg/days. b The gene expression of cholesterol related synthetic enzymes (SREBP-2, HMGCS) in the livers of mice was suppressed by CTS-200 mg/kg/day. c Immunoblot analysis of phospho-AMPKα (Thr172), AMPK, phospho-ACC, and ACC protein. The protein levels are expressed as fold of control. All data were expressed as the mean ± SD (n = 10) of three independent experiments.