| Literature DB >> 27760187 |
Chaudhari Archana Somabhai1, Ruma Raghuvanshi1, G Nareshkumar1.
Abstract
AIMS: To assess protective efficacy of genetically modified Escherichia coli Nissle 1917 (EcN) on metabolic effects induced by chronic consumption of dietary fructose.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27760187 PMCID: PMC5070853 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0164860
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Effect of different probiotic treatment on body weight gain, food intake, fasting glucose, serum insulin levels of rats.
| Groups | Body weight gain (g) | Food intake (g/day) | Fasting glucose (mg/dl) | Serum insulin (μg/l) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 43.33±8.45 | 18.15±1.19 | 98.04±3.59 | 1.10±0.21 | |
| 92.6±8.902 | 17.24±1.73 | 188.48±6.83 | 3.14 ± 0.25 | |
| 87±9.08 | 17.66±1.14 | 185.57±4.81 | 3.28± 0.35 | |
| 67.75±9.12 | 17.77±1.25 | 154.33±5.34 | 2.91± 0.15 | |
| 66.75±9.23 | 17.69±1.58 | 149.82±10.31 | 2.88 ± 0.21 | |
| 52.4±7.31 | 17.33±1.93 | 105.23±10.49 | 1.23± 0.35 | |
| 60.75±8.93 | 17.97±1.25 | 120.29±6.50 | 1.57± 0.35 |
F, Fructose.
Values are expressed as mean ± SEM (n = 6 each group).
** P ≤ 0.01 and
*** P ≤ 0.001 compared with control group.
# # P ≤ 0.01 compared with fructose control group.
Fig 1Effect of probiotic treatment on liver enzyme tests.
(A) ALP (B) AST (C) ALT activity and kidney function tests (D) Urea (E) Creatinine of serum. Values are expressed as mean ± SEM (n = 5–6 each group). ***P≤ 0.001 compared with fructose control, @@@P ≤ 0.001 compared to fructose control, $ $ $ P ≤ 0.001, $ $ P ≤ 0.01 compared to EcN (pqq) group. F: Fructose.
Fig 2Effect of probiotic treatment on serum lipid profile.
(A) LDL, (B) HDL, (C) VLDL, (D) Cholesterol and (E) Triglycerides; on hepatic lipid profile (F) Cholesterol and (G) Triglycerides; (H) mRNA of Fatty acid synthase and (I) mRNA of Acyl Coenzyme A oxidase. Values are expressed as mean ± SEM (n = 5–6 each group). ***P≤ 0.001 compared with fructose control, @@@P ≤ 0.001 compared to fructose control, $ $ $ P ≤ 0.001, $ $ P ≤ 0.01 compared to EcN (pqq) group, ### ≤ 0.001. Values are expressed in mg/dl. F: Fructose.
Fig 3Effect of probiotic treatment on antioxidant status of liver (A), (B) and (C) and blood (D), (E) and (F) in rats. (A and D) Lipid peroxidation (LPO), (B and E) Catalase and (C and F) SOD. Values are expressed as mean ± SEM (n = 5–6 each group). ***P≤ 0.001 compared with fructose control, @@@P ≤ 0.001 compared to fructose control, $ $ $ P ≤ 0.001, $ $ P ≤ 0.01 compared to EcN (pqq) group. F: Fructose.
Effect of probiotic treatment on Colonic SCFA, PQQ concentration in liver tissue and fecal samples and liver GSH levels in rats.
| Groups | SCFA levels | PQQ levels | Liver GSH(μmoles/g tissue) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Acetate | Propionate | Butyrate | Feacal (n moles /g faecal wet weight) | Liver (picomoles / g tissue) | ||
| 98.43±3.28 | 18.52±4.24 | 9.52±1.41 | 0.698±0.10 | 30.93±1.13 | 22.41±1.15 | |
| 80.32±6.94 | 20.54±3.67 | 11.10±1.41 | 0.656±0.09 | 34.23±2.34 | 11.66±1.24 | |
| 76.45 ±4.89 | 25.53 ± 5.11 | 10.99±2.91 | 0.701±0.11 | 39.23±1.54 | 14.9 ±3.1 | |
| 123.12±7.61 | 28.16±3.65 | 18.54±2.56 | 4.181±0.13 | 58.24±4.08 | 17.54 ±2.06 | |
| 120.32 ±4.5 | 29.95618 | 19.24±4.34 | 3.633±0.04 | 57.89±.94 | 16.94±1.75 | |
| 125.27±3.45 | 30.57512 | 20.56±3.4 | 3.51± 0.09 | 60.32±1.97 | 19.23±1.86 | |
| 126.12±6.61 | 28.96±3.65 | 19.84±3.9 | 3.69± 0.09 | 52.43±0.97 | 18.93±1.66 | |
F, Fructose; SCFA, Short chain fatty acid; GSH, Reduced glutathione; PQQ, pyrroloquinoline quinone.
Values are expressed as mean ± SEM (n = 6 each group).
*P ≤ 0.05 and
** P ≤ 0.01 compared with control group.
# P ≤ 0.05 and
##P ≤ 0.001 compared with Fructose control group.