Narges El Golli1, Houssem Dkhili2, Yosra Dallagi2, Dalila Rahali2, Montassar Lasram2, Ines Bini-Dhouib2, Maryline Lebret3, Jean-Philippe Rosa3, Saloua El Fazaa2, Monia Allal-El Asmi4. 1. Laboratoire Microorganismes et Biomolécules Actives (LMBA), Department of Biology, Faculty of Sciences, El Manar University, Tunis, Tunisia. Electronic address: nelgolli@yahoo.fr. 2. Laboratoire Microorganismes et Biomolécules Actives (LMBA), Department of Biology, Faculty of Sciences, El Manar University, Tunis, Tunisia. 3. INSERM U1176, Kremlin-Bicêtre Hospital, Bicêtre, France. 4. L99ES11 Research Laboratory Department of Biochemistry, Rabta Hospital, El Manar University, Tunis, Tunisia.
Abstract
AIMS: Nicotine is known to promote body weight loss and to disturb glucose homeostasis and lipoprotein metabolism. Electronic cigarettes, as a substitute to nicotine, are becoming increasingly popular, although there is no evidence regarding their safety. Considering the dearth of information about e-cigarette toxicity, the present study was designed to compare nicotine alone to e-liquid with or without nicotine on metabolic parameters in Wistar rats. MAIN METHODS: For this purpose, e-liquid with or without nicotine and nicotine alone (0.5mg/kg of body weight) were administered intra-peritoneally during 28 days. KEY FINDINGS: Our results show a significant decrease in food and energy intake after nicotine or e-liquid with nicotine exposure, when compared to control or e-liquid without nicotine. Analysis of lipid status identified a significant decrease in cholesterol and LDL levels in e-cigarette groups, suggesting an improvement in lipid profile. Interestingly, e-liquid without nicotine induced hyperglycemia which is negatively correlated to hepatic glycogen level, acting like nicotine alone. Furthermore, an increase in liver biomarkers was observed in all treated groups. qRT-PCR analysis showed GSK3β up-regulation in e-liquid with nicotine as well as, surprisingly, in e-liquid without nicotine exposure. In contrast, PEPCK genes were only up-regulated in e-liquid with nicotine. SIGNIFICANCE: While some features observed in rats may not be observed in human smokers, most of our data are consistent with, e-liquid per se i.e. without nicotine, not being neutral from a metabolic stand point since disrupting glucose homeostasis in rats.
AIMS: Nicotine is known to promote body weight loss and to disturb glucose homeostasis and lipoprotein metabolism. Electronic cigarettes, as a substitute to nicotine, are becoming increasingly popular, although there is no evidence regarding their safety. Considering the dearth of information about e-cigarette toxicity, the present study was designed to compare nicotine alone to e-liquid with or without nicotine on metabolic parameters in Wistar rats. MAIN METHODS: For this purpose, e-liquid with or without nicotine and nicotine alone (0.5mg/kg of body weight) were administered intra-peritoneally during 28 days. KEY FINDINGS: Our results show a significant decrease in food and energy intake after nicotine or e-liquid with nicotine exposure, when compared to control or e-liquid without nicotine. Analysis of lipid status identified a significant decrease in cholesterol and LDL levels in e-cigarette groups, suggesting an improvement in lipid profile. Interestingly, e-liquid without nicotine induced hyperglycemia which is negatively correlated to hepatic glycogen level, acting like nicotine alone. Furthermore, an increase in liver biomarkers was observed in all treated groups. qRT-PCR analysis showed GSK3β up-regulation in e-liquid with nicotine as well as, surprisingly, in e-liquid without nicotine exposure. In contrast, PEPCK genes were only up-regulated in e-liquid with nicotine. SIGNIFICANCE: While some features observed in rats may not be observed in human smokers, most of our data are consistent with, e-liquid per se i.e. without nicotine, not being neutral from a metabolic stand point since disrupting glucose homeostasis in rats.
Authors: Allison M Glasser; Lauren Collins; Jennifer L Pearson; Haneen Abudayyeh; Raymond S Niaura; David B Abrams; Andrea C Villanti Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2016-11-30 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Nkiruka C Atuegwu; Mario F Perez; Cheryl Oncken; Erin L Mead; Narinder Maheshwari; Eric M Mortensen Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2019-10-28 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Raphaela Putzhammer; Christian Doppler; Thomas Jakschitz; Katharina Heinz; Juliane Förste; Katarina Danzl; Barbara Messner; David Bernhard Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-06-28 Impact factor: 3.240