| Literature DB >> 27699065 |
Mesfin Yimam1, Ping Jiao1, Mei Hong1, Lidia Brownell1, Young-Chul Lee2, Eu-Jin Hyun2, Hyun-Jin Kim2, Tae-Woo Kim2, Jeong-Bum Nam2, Mi-Ran Kim2, Qi Jia1.
Abstract
Background. Obesity and its comorbidities continue to challenge the world at an alarming rate. Although the long term solution lies on lifestyle changes in the form of dieting and exercising, drug, medical food, or dietary supplement interventions are required for those who are already obese. Here we describe a standardized blend composed of extracts from three medicinal plants: Morus alba, Yerba mate, and Magnolia officinalis for appetite suppression and metabolic disorders management. Method. Extracts were standardized to yield a composition designated as UP601. Appetite suppression activity was tested in acute feed intake rat model. Efficacy was evaluated in C57BL/6J mouse models treated with oral doses of 1.3 g/kg/day for 7 weeks. Orlistat at 40 mg/kg/day was used as a positive control. Body compositions of mice were assessed using a dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA). ELISA was done for insulin, leptin, and ghrelin level quantitation. Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) scoring was conducted. Results. Marked acute hypophagia with 81.8, 75.3, 43.9, and 30.9% reductions in food intake at 2, 4, 6, and 24 hours were observed for UP601. Decreases in body weight gain (21.5% compared to the HFD at weeks 7 and 8.2% compared to baseline) and calorie intake (40.5% for the first week) were observed. 75.9% and 46.8% reductions in insulin and leptin, respectively, 4.2-fold increase in ghrelin level, and reductions of 18.6% in cholesterol and 59% in low-density lipoprotein were documented. A percentage body fat of 18.9%, 47.8%, 46.1%, and 30.4% was found for mice treated with normal control, HFD, Orlistat, and UP601, respectively. 59.3% less mesenteric fat pad and improved NASH scores were observed for UP601. Conclusion. UP601, a standardized botanical composition from Morus alba, Yerba mate, and Magnolia officinalis could be used as a natural alternative for appetite suppression, maintaining healthy body weight and metabolism management.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27699065 PMCID: PMC5028828 DOI: 10.1155/2016/4670818
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Obes ISSN: 2090-0708
Figure 1Hourly calorie intake by rats treated with UP601 at 230 and 350 mg/kg in the acute food intake study. P ≤ 0.0001; P ≤ 0.05.
Figure 2Cumulative food intake by rats treated with UP601 at 230 and 350 mg/kg in the acute food intake study. P ≤ 0.0001; P ≤ 0.001; † P ≤ 0.05.
Figure 3Body weight changes observed after 7 weeks of daily oral UP601 treatment in HFD fed obese C57BL/6J mice. P ≤ 0.0001; P ≤ 0.001; † P ≤ 0.05.
Figure 4Daily calorie intake by obese mice treated with oral doses of UP601 at 1.3 g/kg in the DIO model. P ≤ 0.0001; P ≤ 0.001; P ≤ 0.05.
Liver function and lipid profiling.
| Group | ALT | AST | Glucose | T-chol | TG | LDL-C | HDL-C |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NC | 12.3 ± 2.7 | 40.8 ± 4.3 | 232.7 ± 65.6 | 107.3 ± 2.5 | 24.3 ± 10.5 | 7.7 ± 1.2 | 49.2 ± 1.0 |
| HFD | 88.8 ± 24.7 | 86.0 ± 10.9 | 272.0 ± 34.4 | 194.3 ± 17.2 | 24.8 ± 8.3 | 10.5 ± 1.1 | 68.7 ± 5.1 |
| ORI | 27.4 ± 4.8 | 65.2 ± 21.6 | 245.8 ± 38.1 | 144.3 ± 36.0 | 45.8 ± 22.1 | 5.0 ± 0.8 | 66.1 ± 14.6 |
| UP601 | 35.4 ± 7.2 | 55.7 ± 7.5 | 235.0 ± 92.4 | 158.2 ± 10.7 | 35.0 ± 18.2 | 4.3 ± 0.7† | 70.1 ± 3.7 |
P ≤ 0.05; P ≤ 0.0001; † P ≤ 0.001. P values versus HFD group.
Figure 5DEXA scan images for mice in the HFD-induced obesity group. (a) Normal control; (b) HFD + vehicle; (c) HFD + ORI; (d) HFD + 1.3 g UP601.
Figure 6DEXA scan measurements for lean body and fat mass. (a) Fat mass, (b) lean body mass, and (c) percent fat relative to body weight. P ≤ 0.0001; P ≤ 0.001.
Relative organ weight for mice treated with UP601 in HFD-induced mouse obesity model.
| Groups | Liver | Fat deposition | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Epididymal | Retroperitoneal | Perirenal | Mesenteric | Total | ||
| NC | 3.49 ± 0.61 | 2.38 ± 1.03 | 0.62 ± 0.33 | 0.33 ± 0.10‡ | 1.04 ± 0.29‡ | 4.37 ± 1.70‡ |
| HFD | 3.54 ± 0.81 | 4.94 ± 0.76 | 1.14 ± 0.16 | 1.31 ± 0.15 | 3.51 ± 0.48 | 10.90 ± 0.63 |
| Orlistat (40 mg/kg) | 2.61 ± 0.45† | 5.78 ± 0.87 | 1.36 ± 0.25 | 0.98 ± 0.21† | 2.54 ± 0.52† | 10.66 ± 1.07 |
| UP601 (1.3 g/kg) | 3.14 ± 0.13 | 4.36 ± 0.53 | 1.44 ± 0.15 | 0.63 ± 0.09‡ | 1.43 ± 0.32‡ | 7.55 ± 0.82‡ |
P ≤ 0.05; † P ≤ 0.001; ‡ P ≤ 0.0001. P values versus HFD group.
Figure 7Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis scores for mice in the HFD study group treated with Orlistat and UP601 at doses of 1.3 g/kg. P ≤ 0.0001; † P ≤ 0.001; P ≤ 0.05.
Figure 8H&E staining of liver tissue. (a) Normal control; (b) HFD (60% fat calorie diet group); (c) HFD + Orlistat treated (40 mg/kg); (d) HFD + 1.3 g/kg UP601 treated. Magnification is ×200 and the bar means 100 μm.
Figure 9Insulin (a), leptin (b), and ghrelin level (c) of obese mice treated with UP601 at oral doses of 1.3 g/kg for 7 weeks. † P ≤ 0.0001; P ≤ 0.05.