| Literature DB >> 26867941 |
Jenni Puurunen1, Katriina Tiira2,3, Marko Lehtonen4,5, Kati Hanhineva6,7, Hannes Lohi8,9.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Anxieties, such as shyness, noise phobia and separation anxiety, are common but poorly understood behavioural problems in domestic dogs, Canis familiaris. Although studies have demonstrated genetic and environmental contributions to anxiety pathogenesis, better understanding of the molecular underpinnings is needed to improve diagnostics, management and treatment plans. As a part of our ongoing canine anxiety genetics efforts, this study aimed to pilot a metabolomics approach in fearful and non-fearful dogs to identify candidate biomarkers for more objective phenotyping purposes and to refer to potential underlying biological problem.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26867941 PMCID: PMC4751666 DOI: 10.1186/s12993-016-0091-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Behav Brain Funct ISSN: 1744-9081 Impact factor: 3.759
Demographics of the dogs
| Age (years) | Mean age (SD) | Sex | Fearfulness (total) | Human fear_frequency | Human fear_intensity | Noise sensitivity | Behavioral test | Diet | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1.1 | 3.5 (2.5) | Male | 4 | 3 | 10 | 3 | No | Not known |
| 2 | 1.5 | Male | 10 | 2 | 16 | 2 | No | Dry food, raw meat, oils | |
| 3 | 2.4 | Male | 3 | 4 | 21 | 3 | No | Dry food | |
| 4 | 2.8 | Male | 7 | 4 | 28 | 0 | No | Raw food, oils | |
| 5 | 4.2 | Male | 10 | 3 | 30 | 0 | Yes | Not known | |
| 6 | 5.4 | Male | 6 | 2 | 14 | 5 | No | Dry food | |
| 7 | 4.4 | Male | 8 | 2 | 14 | 4 | Yes | Not known | |
| 8 | 9.3 | Male | 6 | 3 | 6 | 8 | No | Dry food | |
| 9 | 1.8 | Female | 8 | 4 | 28 | 0 | No | Dry food, meat, fish | |
| 10 | 1.6 | Female | 10 | 4 | 30 | 0 | Yes | Raw food, oils | |
| 11 | 3.2 | 3.4 (2.2) | Male | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | No | Raw food, oils |
| 12 | 4.5 | Male | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | No | Dry food | |
| 13 | 3.3 | Male | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Yes | Dry food, oils | |
| 14 | 1.1 | Male | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | No | Not known | |
| 15 | 8.5 | Male | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Yes | Dry food | |
| 16 | 4.8 | Male | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Yes | Dry food, meat | |
| 17 | 3.3 | Male | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | No | Dry food, oils | |
| 18 | 1.6 | Male | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | No | Dry food, oils, vitamin C | |
| 19 | 2 | Female | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Yes | Homemade food, meat, dry food, oils | |
| 20 | 2.1 | Female | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | No | Not known |
Detailed information, including age, sex, behavioral scores and diet, is provided for each individual dog. Dogs numbered from 1 to 10 are fearful dogs, whereas dogs numbered from 11 to 20 are non-fearful dogs
Characteristics for the putatively identified marker metabolites in liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry analysis
| Column | Ionization mode | MW |
| RT (min) | Putative annotation | p-valuea | FDR corrected p-valueb | Fold change (FC)c | CID (eV) | MS/MS fragmentation | Identification referenced | VIP | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cluster 1 | RP | ESI+ | 821.577 | 822.584 | 10.67 | PC(16:0/23:5) | 0.0017 | 0.0226 | −2.06 | 20 | 822.584, 184.074; ESI(−) 40 eV: 806.556, 343.249, 255.233 | MS/MS | 2.24 |
| RP | ESI+ | 801.587 | 802.595 | 11.35 | PC(18:0/19:1) | 0.0376 | 0.1316 | −1.98 | 20 | 184.072, 784.5833, 802.594; ESI(−) 40 eV: 295.229, 283.261, 786.565 | MS/MS | 1.30 | |
| RP | ESI+ | 204.09 | 205.097 | 2.30 | Tryptophan | 4.22E−04 | 0.0087 | −1.58 | 10 | 188.0698, 146.0599, 144.0806, 130.0613, 132.0788, 159. 0881, 205.0947 | Standard | 0.84 | |
| RP | ESI+ | 537.295 | 538.309 | 10.25 | LysoPC(19:0) | 0.0488 | 0.1461 | −1.53 | 20 | 104.106, 501.236, 560.310 [M + Na]+; ESI(−) 20 eV: 522.323, 297.245 | MS/MS | 1.68 | |
| Cluster 2 | RP | ESI− | 579.319 | 578.312 | 8.79 | Unknown LysoPC | 0.0103 | 0.0884 | −2.79 | 20 | 293.209, 578.310, 518.291; ESI(+) 20 eV: 104.107, 534.319, 184.074 | MS/MS | 2.08 |
| HILIC | ESI− | 88.016 | 87.009 | 1.77 | Unknown metabolite | 0.0427 | 0.1108 | −2.58 | 10 | 44.999, 73.857 | MS/MS | 1.34 | |
| RP | ESI+ | 809.592 | 810.599 | 12.64 | PC(18:0/20:4) | 0.0200 | 0.0965 | −2.00 | 40 | 184.073, 86.095; ESI(−) 40 eV: 303.234, 283.265, 794.567 | MS/MS | 1.82 | |
| RP | ESI+ | 517.316 | 518.323 | 8.81 | LysoPC(18:3) | 0.0472 | 0.1443 | −1.86 | 40 | 184.072, 104.104, 86.094, 60.082; ESI(−) 20 eV: 502.2945, 277.2162 | MS/MS | 1.47 | |
| RP | ESI+ | 499.270 | 500.277 | 9.17 | LysoPE(20:5) | 0.0416 | 0.1376 | −1.64 | 10 | 500.2786, 359.2548; ESI(-) 20 eV: 498.2860, 169.1368, 301.2172 | MS/MS | 1.28 | |
| Cluster 3 | RP | ESI+ | 311.319 | 312.326 | 11.01 | Unknown metabolite | 0.0240 | 0.1055 | 2.85 | 20 | 312.326, 57.071, 102.095, 100.075, 214.214, 81.068 | MS/MS | 1.88 |
| HILIC | ESI− | 189.994 | 188.986 | 0.69 | Pyrocatechol sulfate | 0.0150 | 0.0734 | 2.36 | 40 | 108.024, 79.957, 53.042, 80.965, 109.027 | Pyrocatechol standard | 1.55 | |
| HILIC | ESI+ | 246.137 | 247.144 | 1.42 | Hypaphorine | 0.0485 | 0.1719 | 2.17 | 10 | 188.071, 60.081, 146.061, 55.017, 247.206, 144.079, 85.0245, 118.928 | Keller et al. [ | 1.29 | |
| RP | ESI− | 213.009 | 212.002 | 2.43 | Indoxylsulfate | 0.0480 | 0.1870 | 1.78 | 10 | 212.007, 80.966, 132.043 | MID 253 | 1.85 | |
| RP | ESI+ | 370.308 | 371.315 | 10.96 | Unknown fatty acyl, either di-(2-ethylhexyl)adipate or dioctyl hexanedioate | 0.0335 | 0.1253 | 1.55 | 10 | 129.0557, 111.0459, 147.0635, 101.0612, 57.0694, 241.1772 | MS/MS | 1.60 | |
| RP | ESI+ | 315.277 | 316.285 | 8.7 | Unknown sphingosine, either dehydrophytosphingosine, 6-hydroxysphingosine, or (4OH,8Z,t18:1) sphingosine | 0.0087 | 0.0619 | 1.50 | 40 | 93.071, 43.055, 57.069, 81.070, 69,069, 67.055, 95.048, 77.040 | MID 392 | 0.68 | |
| RP | ESI+ | 283.287 | 284.294 | 10.59 | Stearamide | 0.0266 | 0.1108 | 1.28 | 20 | 284.295, 57.070, 102.091, 88.076, 71.085, 43.054 | MID 34494 | 1.73 | |
| Cluster 4 | HILIC | ESI+ | 136.039 | 137.046 | 1.43 | Hypoxanthine | 0.0250 | 0.1225 | 1.87 | 20 | 137.046, 119.035, 94.040, 110.035, 55.029, 82.038 | MID 83 | 1.60 |
| RP | ESI− | 749.54 | 748.531 | 12.51 | PE(P-18:1/20:4) | 0.0447 | 0.1866 | 1.81 | 20 | 748.526, 303.234; ESI(+) 20 eV: 361.275, 390.2773, 609.529, 750.551 | MS/MS | 1.61 |
Also the most significant non-identified marker metabolites are included. The characteristics include both uncorrected and FDR corrected p values, fold changes, Variable influence on projection (VIP) –values, and identification references, together with parameters for the LC–MS analysis, including the chromatography (Column), ionization mode in the mass spectrometry (Ionization mode), molecular weight (MW), identified ion (m/z), retention time (RT), collision induced dissociation energy (CID), and fragment ions in the tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS fragments). n = 20 dogs (10 fearful and 10 non-fearful dogs). Note that two metabolic features, tryptophan and unknown sphingosine, are included in the table despite their low VIP values, since they otherwise show statistical significance
LysoPC lysophosphatidylcholine, LysoPE lysophosphatidylethanolamine, PC phosphatidylcholine, PE phosphatidylethanolamine
aStudent’s t-test comparing the fold change against the Control group. P values <0.05 were considered as statistically significant
bBenjamini–Hochberg false discovery rate (FDR) corrected p value
cAverage fold change when compared against the Control group, with p values. Fold changes ≥±1.2 were considered as statistically significant. Positive values indicate increased whole blood levels in case dogs vs. control dogs, whereas negative values indicate decreased whole blood levels in case dogs vs. control dogs
dIdentification of metabolites is based on manual MS/MS spectral interpretation, METLIN ID when MS/MS spectrum available, commercial standard compound, or some earlier published fragmentation patterns. Keller et al. [34]
Fig. 1Partial least squares discriminant analysis (PLS-DA) of the reversed phase positive ESI–MS mode data. The score plot shows the individual samples in both case and control groups. Case group (black circles); Control group (grey squares)
Fig. 2K-means cluster analysis with the hierarchical clustering of the fold change values (case versus control). Included are the metabolic features having p value <0.05 and fold change value ≥±1.2. The clusters are numbered one–four as depicted in the figure. The values for peak areas were row-wise normalized, and the colour scale indicates high (red) or (low) metabolite level. Grey colour in the heat map indicates not detected value