| Literature DB >> 26648271 |
Xiumin Li1, Mingxing Yang1, Zhipeng Li1, Mei Xue1, Zhaoshui Shangguan2, Zhimin Ou1, Ming Liu1, Suhuan Liu1, Shuyu Yang1, Xuejun Li1.
Abstract
High fat diet (HFD)-induced obesity triggers common features of human metabolic syndrome in rats. Our previous study showed that Fructus xanthii (FX) attenuates HFD-induced hepatic steatosis. The present study was designed to investigate the effects of FX on lipid metabolism in epididymal fat (EF), and examine its underlying mechanisms. Aqueous extraction fractions of FX or vehicle were orally administered by gavage for 6 weeks to rats fed either a HFD or a normal chow diet (NCD). The levels of circulating free fatty acid (FFA) were determined in plasma, and the expression levels of lipid metabolism‑ and inflammation‑associated genes in the EF were measured using reverse transcription‑quantitative polymerase chain reaction analysis. The general morphology, size and number of adipocytes in the EF, and the levels of macrophage infiltration were evaluated using hematoxylin and eosin staining or immunohistochemical staining. FX decreased circulating levels of FFA, increased the expression levels of sterol‑regulatory‑element‑binding protein‑1c, FAS, acetyl coenzyme A carboxylase, diacylglycerol acyltransferase and lipoprotein lipase lipogenic genes in the EF. FX increased the numbers of adipocytes in the EF, and featured a shift towards smaller adipocyte size. Compared with the vehicle‑treated rats, positive staining of F4/80 was more dispersed in the FX‑treated rats, and the percentage of F4/80 positive cells was significantly decreased. FX attenuated HFD‑induced lipid dyshomeostasis in the epididymal adipose tissue.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26648271 PMCID: PMC4686102 DOI: 10.3892/mmr.2015.4628
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Mol Med Rep ISSN: 1791-2997 Impact factor: 2.952
Oligonucleotide primers used for reverse transcription-quantitative polymerase chain reaction analysis.
| Gene | Forward primer | Reverse primer |
|---|---|---|
| ChREBP | 5′-CTCGTGCAGGTCATCAAGAA-3′ | 5′-CAGCCCTCTTCATCTCCAAG-3′ |
| SREBP-1c | 5′-GGAGCCATGGATTGCACATT-3′ | 5′-CCTGTCTCACCCCCAGCATA-3′ |
| LXR | 5′-TCAGCATCTTCTCTGCAGACCGG-3′ | 5′-TCATTAGCATCCGTGGGAACA-3′ |
| PPAR-α | 5′-CTCGTGCAGGTCATCAAGAA-3′ | 5′-CAGCCCTCTTCATCTCCAAG-3′ |
| FAS | 5′-CACAGCATTCAGTCCTATCCACAGA-3′ | 5′-CACAGCCAACCAGATGCTTCA-3′ |
| ACC1 | 5′-GGACAGACTGATCGCAGAGAAAG-3′ | 5′-TGGAGAGCCCCACACACA-3′ |
| SCD-1 | 5′-CCTTAACCCTGAGATCCCGTAGA-3′ | 5′-AGCCCATAAAAGATTTCTGCAAA-3′ |
| CPT-1 | 5′-AATTGCAGTGGTATTTGAAGCTAAAA-3′ | 5′-GATATATTCTTCCCACCAGTCACTCA-3′ |
| ACO | 5′-GATTCAAGACAAAGCCGTCCAG-3′ | 5′-TCCACCAGAGCAACAGCATTG-3′ |
| ACOX1 | 5′-GTTGATCACGCACATCTTGGA-3′ | 5′-TCGTTCAGAATCAAGTTCTCAATTTC-3′ |
| C/EBP | 5′-TTACAACAGGCCAGGTTTCC-3′ | 5′-GGCTGGCGACATACAGTACA-3′; |
| PPARγ | 5′-ATTCTGGCCCACCAACTTCGG-3′ | 5′-TGGAAGCCTGATGCTTTATCCCCA-3′ |
| GPAT | 5′-TGATCAGCCAGGAGCAGCTG-3′ | 5′-AGACAGTATGTGGCACTCTC-3′ |
| AGPAT | 5′-GCATTTCAGGATCTCGTTCACA-3′ | 5′-ATCAACCCAACGAGAGCACTTT-3′ |
| DPAT | 5′-AGACTAGGAGGAGTGTGCAGGC-3′ | 5′-CGCTTCTTCCAAGGGAACTATG-3′ |
| ATGL | 5′-CACTTTAGCTCCAAGGATGA-3′ | 5′-TGGTTCAGTAGGCCATTCCT-3′ |
| HSL | 5′-CGCCTTACGGAGTCTATGC-3′ | 5′-TCTGATGGCTCTGAGTTGC-3′ |
| LPL | 5′-CAGCTGGGCCTAACTTTGAG-3′ | 5′-CCTCTCTGCAATCACACGAA-3′ |
| CD36 | 5′-CGGCGATGAGAAAGCAGAA-3′ | 5′-CAACCAGGCCCAGGAGC-3′ |
| perlipin | 5′-AGAGGAGACAGATGAGGAGGAAG-3′ | 5′-AGATGGTGTTCTGCAGAGTCTTC-3′ |
| FSP27 | 5′-CCTTTCCCAGAAGCCAACT-3′ | 5′-AGAGTCCAGCGGAGCATT-3′ |
| MCP1 | 5′-AATGGGTCCAGAAGTACATTAGAAA-3′ | 5′-GGTGCTGAAGTCCTTAGGGTTG-3′ |
| TNF-α | 5′-ACACCATGAGCACGGAAAGC-3′ | 5′-CCGCCACGAGCAGGAA-3′ |
| IL-1β | 5′-AATGGACAGAACATAAGCCAACA-3′ | 5′-CCCAAGGCCACAGGCAT-3′ |
| CD68 | 5′-TAGTTCTTTCTCCAGCAATTCACC-3′ | 5′-CCCGAAGTGTCCCTTGTCC-3′ |
| β-actin | 5′-CGGTCAGGTCATCACTATCG-3′ | 5′-TTCCATACCCAGGAAGGAAG-3 |
Figure 1Effect of FX on circulating FFA levels. Data are presented as the mean ± standard error fo the mean. (n=10). #P<0.05, vs. NCD group; *P<0.05, vs. HFD group. FX, Fructus xanthii; FFA, free fatty acids; NCD, normal chow diet; HFD, high fat diet.
Figure 2Effect of FX on epididymal adipose tissue mass. (A) Histological analysis of epididymal adipose tissue. Scale bar, 200 µm (B) Adipocyte numbers. (C) Distribution of adipocyte sizes. (D) Different size and AUC of adipocytes: Small, 1000–25000 µm2; medium, 25,000–50,000 µm2; and large, >50,000 µm2. Data are presented as the mean ± standard error of the mean (n=10). #P<0.05, vs. NCD group; *P<0.05, vs. HFD group. FX, Fructus xanthii; NCD, normal chow diet; HFD, high fat diet. AUC, area under the curve.
Figure 3Effect of FX on the expression levels of lipogenic genes in the EF. (A) Expression levels of lipogenic genes; (B) Expression levels of antioxidant genes; (C) Expression levels of lipolytic genes. Data are presented as the mean ± standard error of the mean (n=10). #P<0.05 and ##P<0.01, vs. NCD group; *P<0.05 and **P<0.01, vs. HFD group. FX, Fructus xanthii; NCD, normal chow diet; HFD, high fat diet; ChREBPl, carbohydrate-responsive element-binding protein; SREBP1c, sterol-regulatory-element-binding protein-1c; LXR, liver X receptor; PPARα, peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor α; ACC1, acetyl-CoA carboxylase; SCD1, stearyl-CoA desaturase 1; CPT1, carnitine palmitoyltransferase 1; ACP, acylacyl carrier protein; ACOX, acyl-CoA oxidase; ACOX1, acyl-CoA oxidase 1.
Figure 4Effect of FX on the expression of lipogenesis-associated genes in the EF. (A) Lipogenesis enzymes; (B) lipolytic enzymes; (C) lipid droplet-associated proteins; (D) genes involved in lipid transport into adipocytes. Data are presented as the mean ± standard error of the mean (n=10). #P<0.05, ##P<0.01, vs. NCD group; *P<0.05 and **P<0.01, vs. HFD group. FX, Fructus xanthii; NCD, normal chow diet; HFD, high fat diet. ATGL, adipose triglyceride lipase; HSL, hormone-sensitive lipase; FSP-27; fat specific protein-27; LPL, lipoprotein lipase.
Figure 5Effect of FX on inflammation in EF. (A) Expression levels of inflammatory genes. Data are presented as the mean ± standard error of the mean (n=10). #P<0.05, vs. NCD group; *P<0.05, vs. HFD group. (B) Immunohistochemical staining for F4/80. Scale bar=200 µm (top row) and 100 µm (bottom row) Data are presented as the mean ± standard error of the mean (n=5). *P<0.05, vs. HFD group. FX, Fructus xanthii; NCD, normal chow diet; HFD, high fat diet.