| Literature DB >> 26609312 |
Ana Elena Peredo-Escárcega1, Verónica Guarner-Lans1, Israel Pérez-Torres2, Sergio Ortega-Ocampo1, Elizabeth Carreón-Torres3, Vicente Castrejón-Tellez1, Eulises Díaz-Díaz4, María Esther Rubio-Ruiz1.
Abstract
Resveratrol (RSV) and quercetin (QRC) modify energy metabolism and reduce cardiovascular risk factors included in the metabolic syndrome (MetS). These natural compounds upregulate and activate sirtuins (SIRTs), a family of NAD-dependent histone deacetylases. We analyzed the effect of two doses of a commercial combination of RSV and QRC on serum fatty acid composition and their regulation of SIRTs 1-3 and PPAR-γ expression in white adipose tissue. MetS was induced in Wistar rats by adding 30% sucrose to drinking water for five months. Rats were divided into control and two groups receiving the two different doses of RSV and QRC in drinking water daily for 4 weeks following the 5 months of sucrose treatment. Commercial kits were used to determine serum parameters and the expressions of SIRTs in WAT were analysed by western blot. In MetS rats body mass, central adiposity, insulin, triglycerides, non-HDL-C, leptin, adiponectin, monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFAs), and nonesterified fatty acids (NEFAs) were increased, while polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) and HDL-C were decreased. SIRT 1 and SIRT 2 were downregulated, while PPAR-γ was increased. RSV + QRC administration improved the serum health parameters modified by MetS and upregulate SIRT 1 and SIRT 2 expression in white abdominal tissue in MetS animals.Entities:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26609312 PMCID: PMC4644561 DOI: 10.1155/2015/474032
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
The effects of RSV + QRC administration on body characteristics and biochemical parameters from control and MetS rats.
| Control | MetS | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without treatment | RSV 10 + QRC 0.19 mg/kg/day | RSV 50 + QRC 0.95 mg/kg/day | Without treatment | RSV 10 + QRC 0.19 mg/kg/day | RSV 50 + QRC 0.95 mg/kg/day | |
| Body weight (g) | 502.0 ± 19.5 | 463.8 ± 20.8 | 514.2 ± 20.9 | 570.4 ± 13.4a | 490.8 ± 11.6c | 489.8 ± 10.5c |
| Central adiposity (g) | 6.0 ± 0.7 | 4.5 ± 0.6 | 6.3 ± 0.9 | 12 ± 0.6a | 11.5 ± 0.9 | 8.9 ± 1.1c |
| Blood pressure (mm Hg) | 103.3 ± 1.0 | 101.2 ± 2.7 | 108.4 ± 3.5 | 140.5 ± 1.0a | 122.7 ± 3.8c | 115.5 ± 2.9c |
| Glucose (mg/dL) | 119.9 ± 12.2 | 118.8 ± 13.7 | 87.9 ± 5.9 | 121.8 ± 20.3 | 85.3 ± 9.5 | 90.7 ± 7.7 |
| Insulin (ng/mL) | 0.26 ± 0.02 | 0.25 ± 0.05 | 0.18 ± 0.04 | 0.47 ± 0.04a | 0.29 ± 0.05c | 0.23 ± 0.02c |
| HOMA-IR | 1.3 ± 0.2 | 0.61 ± 0.03 | 0.9 ± 0.12 | 2.1 ± 0.3b | 0.9 ± 0.1c | 0.81 ± 0.1c |
| Leptin (ng/mL) | 2.3 ± 0.3 | 3.3 ± 0.3 | 2.6 ± 0.1 | 4.2 ± 0.3a | 5.2 ± 0.3d,e | 3.8 ± 0.3e |
| Adiponectin ( | 3.8 ± 0.2 | 4.2 ± 0.3 | 3.7 ± 0.3 | 6.7 ± 0.3a | 6.1 ± 0.5e | 5.8 ± 0.2e |
Values are mean ± SEM. HOMA-IR: homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance; n = 12; a P < 0.01 MetS without treatment versus control without treatment; b P < 0.05 MetS without treatment versus control without treatment; c P < 0.01 against same group without treatment; d P < 0.01 versus same group with different doses; e P < 0.01 against control with same dose.
The effects of RSV + QRC administration on serum triglycerides, total cholesterol (TC), HDL-C, and non-HDL-C levels from control and MetS rats.
| Control | MetS | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without treatment | RSV 10 + QRC 0.19 mg/kg/day | RSV 50 + QRC 0.95 mg/kg/day | Without treatment | RSV 10 + QRC 0.19 mg/kg/day | RSV 50 + QRC 0.95 mg/kg/day | |
| Triglycerides (mg/dL) | 77.8 ± 7.9 | 71.4 ± 7.4 | 57.8 ± 9.2 | 133.7 ± 6.3a | 103.2 ± 9.7e | 90.5 ± 5.4c,e |
| TC (mg/dL) | 57.6 ± 5.6 | 55.5 ± 3.4 | 45.7 ± 1.7 | 52.3 ± 3.5 | 56.6 ± 5.7 | 38.2 ± 4.7 |
| HDL-C (mg/dL) | 28.2 ± 2.5 | 27.1 ± 1.8 | 28.6 ± 1.6 | 17.6 ± 1.8a | 29.1 ± 4.2c,d | 20.3 ± 2.4 |
| non-HDL-C (mg/dL) | 22.8 ± 2.1 | 29.4 ± 2.7 | 17.1 ± 0.4d | 35.2 ± 3.02a | 27.5 ± 2.2 | 17.9 ± 2.8c,d |
Values are mean ± SEM. n = 12; a P < 0.01 MetS without treatment versus control without treatment; c P < 0.01 against same group without treatment; d P < 0.01 versus same group with different doses; e P < 0.01 against control with same dose.
Effect of RSV + QRC administration on seric fatty acid (FA) composition from control and MetS rats.
| FA % | Control | MetS | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without treatment | RSV 10 + QRC 0.19 mg/kg/day | RSV 50 + QRC 0.95 mg/kg/day | Without treatment | RSV 10 + QRC 0.19 mg/kg/day | RSV 50 + QRC 0.95 mg/kg/day | |
| Palmitic acid | 32.7 ± 0.9 | 31.7 ± 0.6 | 32.1 ± 1.2 | 33.5 ± 0.6 | 32.7 ± 1.1 | 32.2 ± 1.2 |
| Palmitoleic acid | 4.3 ± 0.7 | 5.6 ± 1.1 | 4.5 ± 0.8 | 6.7 ± 0.3a | 6.2 ± 0.5 | 7.3 ± 0.6 |
| Stearic acid | 22.2 ± 0.9 | 22.8 ± 0.9 | 22.6 ± 1.1 | 19.4 ± 1.1 | 19.5 ± 1.0 | 19.8 ± 0.5 |
| Oleic acid | 14.3 ± 1.1 | 13.5 ± 0.6 | 13.3 ± 0.7 | 21.9 ± 1.3a | 22.1 ± 0.4 | 17.7 ± 1.1c |
| Linoleic acid | 13.6 ± 0.8 | 12.6 ± 0.8 | 14.1 ± 0.9 | 10.5 ± 1.2 | 11.3 ± 0.7 | 10.3 ± 0.5 |
|
| 0.3 ± 0.03 | 0.9 ± 0.4 | 0.4 ± 0.1 | 0.8 ± 0.3 | 0.5 ± 0.1 | 0.3 ± 0.1 |
| Dihomo- | 1.2 ± 0.5 | 0.6 ± 0.1 | 0.6 ± 0.2 | 0.7 ± 0.4 | 0.4 ± 0.05 | 0.8 ± 0.4 |
| Arachidonic acid | 5.5 ± 1.1 | 10.7 ± 1.1c | 12.1 ± 0.9c | 6.7 ± 0.9 | 7.9 ± 0.6 | 7.3 ± 0.4 |
| SFA | 59.9 ± 1.4 | 55.9 ± 2.0 | 54.7 ± 1.7 | 54.0 ± 1.5 | 52.3 ± 1.5 | 52.7 ± 1.7 |
| MUFA | 17.8 ± 1.0 | 19.0 ± 1.4 | 17.8 ± 0.8 | 28.6 ± 1.6a | 27.6 ± 0.5 | 25.6 ± 1.4 |
| PUFA | 20.3 ± 1.6 | 23.5 ± 1.2c | 27.2 ± 1.6c,d | 15.3 ± 0.8a | 20.1 ± 1.2c | 19.2 ± 0.5c |
SFA: saturated fatty acid, MUFA: monounsaturated fatty acid, and PUFA: polyunsaturated fatty acid. Data are mean ± SEM. n = 12; a P < 0.01 MetS without treatment versus control without treatment; c P < 0.01 against same group without treatment; d P < 0.05 versus same group with different dose.
Effect of RSV + QRC administration on seric nonesterified fatty acids (NEFAs) composition from control and MetS rats.
| NEFAs % | Control | MetS | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without treatment | RSV 10 + QRC 0.19 mg/kg/day | RSV 50 + QRC 0.95 mg/kg/day | Without treatment | RSV 10 + QRC 0.19 mg/kg/day | RSV 50 + QRC 0.95 mg/kg/day | |
| Palmitic acid | 34.9 ± 1.3 | 32.5 ± 1.4 | 33.6 ± 0.9 | 33.6 ± 0.8 | 32.8 ± 0.9 | 33.6 ± 0.7 |
| Palmitoleic acid | 6.2 ± 0.9 | 5.3 ± 0.8 | 5.1 ± 0.9 | 13.1 ± 0.8a | 11.6 ± 0.5 | 10.9 ± 0.5c |
| Stearic acid | 22.2 ± 0.5 | 24.1 ± 0.7 | 23.1 ± 0.8 | 16.2 ± 0.5a | 19.2 ± 1.1c | 19.8 ± 0.5c |
| Oleic acid | 17.8 ± 1.0 | 19.4 ± 1.0 | 18.6 ± 0.9 | 22.5 ± 0.9a | 23.0 ± 0.5 | 21.9 ± 0.5 |
| Linoleic acid | 13.7 ± 1.4 | 14.3 ± 0.6 | 13.9 ± 0.9 | 8.8 ± 0.3b | 8.1 ± 0.4 | 9.0 ± 0.4 |
|
| 1.3 ± 0.2 | 1.4 ± 0.3 | 1.4 ± 0.3 | 1.6 ± 0.3 | 1.1 ± 0.2 | 1.2 ± 0.3 |
| Dihomo- | 0.7 ± 0.08 | 0.8 ± 0.1 | 0.6 ± 0.07 | 0.5 ± 0.1 | 0.4 ± 0.05 | 0.6 ± 0.07 |
| Arachidonic acid | 3.1 ± 0.5 | 2.4 ± 0.2 | 3.9 ± 0.4 | 2.1 ± 0.3b | 3.1 ± 0.7 | 2.5 ± 0.3 |
| SFA | 57.2 ± 1.6 | 56.7 ± 1.6 | 56.7 ± 0.9 | 49.8 ± 0.9a | 52.0 ± 1.05 | 53.4 ± 1.1 |
| MUFA | 22.6 ± 1.4 | 24.6 ± 1.1 | 23.7 ± 0.6 | 36.2 ± 0.9a | 34.3 ± 0.6 | 32.4 ± 0.8 |
| PUFA | 17.6 ± 0.9 | 18.7 ± 0.6 | 19.8 ± 1.3 | 13.5 ± 0.7b | 13.7 ± 1.1 | 14.1 ± 1.1 |
SFA: saturated fatty acid, MUFA: monounsaturated fatty acid, and PUFA: Polyunsaturated fatty acid. Data are mean ± SEM. n = 12; a P < 0.01 MetS without treatment versus control without treatment; b P < 0.05 MetS without treatment versus control without treatment; c P < 0.01 against same group without treatment.
Figure 1RSV plus QRC leads to SIRT 1 expression in WAT from MetS rats. (a) Protein expression, data represent mean ± SEM (n = 6 per group). # P < 0.05; P < 0.05 against MetS without treatment. (b) Representative Western blot analysis. Line 1: control without treatment; line 2: control treated with RSV 10 + QRC 0.19; line 3: control treated with RSV 50 + QRC 0.95; line 4, MetS without treatment; line 5: MetS treated with RSV 10 + QRC 0.19; line 6: MetS treated with RSV 50 + QRC 0.95.
Figure 3RSV plus QRC leads to SIRT 2 expression in WAT from MetS rats. (a) Protein expression, data represent mean ± SEM (n = 6 per group). # P < 0.05; P < 0.01 against MetS without treatment. (b) Representative Western blot analysis. Line 1: control without treatment; line 2: control treated with RSV 10 + QRC 0.19; line 3: control treated with RSV 50 + QRC 0.95; line 4, MetS without treatment; line 5: MetS treated with RSV 10 + QRC 0.19; line 6: MetS treated with RSV 50 + QRC 0.95.
Figure 4Effect of RSV + QRC administration on SIRT 3 expression in WAT from control and MetS rats. (a) Protein expression, data represent mean ± SEM (n = 6 per group). # P < 0.05. (b) Representative Western blot analysis. Line 1: control without treatment; line 2: control treated with RSV 10 + QRC 0.19; line 3: control treated with RSV 50 + QRC 0.95; line 4, MetS without treatment; line 5: MetS treated with RSV 10 + QRC 0.19; line 6: MetS treated with RSV 50 + QRC 0.95.
Figure 2Effect of RSV + QRC administration on PPAR-γ expression in WAT from control and MetS rats. (a) Protein expression, data represent mean ± SEM (n = 6 per group). # P < 0.05; P < 0.05 against control without treatment. (b) Representative Western blot analysis. Line 1: control without treatment; line 2: control treated with RSV 10 + QRC 0.19; line 3: control treated with RSV 50 + QRC 0.95; line 4, MetS without treatment; line 5: MetS treated with RSV 10 + QRC 0.19; line 6: MetS treated with RSV 50 + QRC 0.95.