| Literature DB >> 28280764 |
Melissa McDougall1, Jaewoo Choi2, Hye-Kyeong Kim3, Gerd Bobe2, J Frederik Stevens4, Enrique Cadenas5, Robert Tanguay6, Maret G Traber7.
Abstract
The data herein is in support of our research article by McDougall et al. (2017) [1], in which we used our zebrafish model of embryonic vitamin E (VitE) deficiency to study the consequences of VitE deficiency during development. Adult 5D wild-type zebrafish (Danio rerio), fed defined diets without (E-) or with VitE (E+, 500 mg RRR-α-tocopheryl acetate/kg diet), were spawned to obtain E- and E+ embryos that we evaluated using metabolomics and specific lipid analyses (each measure at 24, 48, 72, 120 hours-post-fertilization, hpf), neurobehavioral development (locomotor responses at 96 hpf), and rescue strategies. Rescues were attempted using micro-injection into the yolksac using VitE (as a phospholipid emulsion containing d6-α-tocopherol at 0 hpf) or D-glucose (in saline at 24 hpf).Entities:
Keywords: Alpha-tocopherol; Choline; Docosahexaenoic acid; Ferroptosis; Glucose
Year: 2017 PMID: 28280764 PMCID: PMC5334496 DOI: 10.1016/j.dib.2017.02.046
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Data Brief ISSN: 2352-3409
Fig. 1Quantified levels of total and free (unesterified) fatty acids in E– vs. E+ embryos. Area counts normalized using internal standards (n=3 samples/group, with n=10–15 embryos/sample for total lipids; n=4 samples/group with n=15-30 embryo/sample for free fatty acids). Shown are saponified (upper row) or extracted only (lower row) samples, means±SEM; p-values are for VitE x Age interactions, unless main effects (VitE or Age) are indicated (Tukey’s post-test, p<0.05 for bars bearing different letters). Abbreviations: LA (linoleic acid); ARA (arachidonic acid); EPA (eicosapentaenoic acid); DHA (docosahexaenoic acid).
Fig. 2Relative response intensities of choline and methylation pathway intermediates. E– and E+ embryo (n=15/sample; 4 samples/group) data were normalized against QC sample intensities (n=4) for each individual metabolite. Statistical significance (p<0.05) was calculated using 2-way ANOVA with Sidak’s post-test for multiple comparisons of normalized and natural log-transformed intensity values. Shown are means ± SEM; p-Values are for VitE x Age interactions, unless indicated otherwise. Paired comparison, p-values are indicated as *<0.05, **<0.005, ***<0.001, **** <0.0001.
Fig. 3Relative response intensities of antioxidant network components from metabolomics and quantification of α-tocopherol and ascorbic acid. A. E– and E+ embryo (n=15/sample; 4 samples/group) relative response data was normalized against QC sample intensities (n=4) for each individual metabolite. B. Quantified levels of α-tocopherol and ascorbic acid, according to established protocols (31) and (33), respectively. Statistical significance (p<0.05) was calculated using 2-way ANOVA with Sidak’s post-test for multiple comparisons of normalized and natural log-transformed intensity values. Shown are means ± SEM; p-Values are for VitE x Age interactions, unless indicated otherwise. Paired comparisons p-values are indicated as *<0.05, **<0.005, ***<0.001, **** <0.0001. C. Antioxidant network scheme showing interaction of antioxidants with lipid radicals and consumption or NADPH.
Fig. 4Relative response intensities of glycolytic and tricarboxylic acid cycle intermediates. E– and E+ embryo (n=15/sample; 4 samples/group) data were normalized against QC sample intensities (n=4) for each individual metabolite. Statistical significance (p<0.05) was calculated using 2-way ANOVA with Sidak’s post-test for multiple comparisons of normalized and natural log-transformed intensity values. Shown are means ± SEM; p-values are for VitE x Age interactions. Paired comparisons p-values are indicated as *<0.05, **<0.005, ***<0.001, **** <0.0001.
Fig. 5Relative response intensities of free saturated fatty acids and coenzyme A from metabolomic analyses. E– and E+ embryo (n=15/sample; 4 samples/group) data were normalized against QC sample intensities (n=4) for each individual metabolite. Statistical significance (p<0.05) was calculated using 2-way ANOVA with Sidak’s post-test for multiple comparisons of normalized and natural log-transformed intensity values. Shown are means±SEM; p-values are for VitE x Age interactions. Paired comparison p-values are indicated as *<0.05, **<0.005, ***<0.001, **** <0.0001.
Fig. 6E– compared with E+ embryos have impaired behavior when injected with saline (upper panel), but restored responses when injected with VitE (lower panel). A. Embryos were analyzed in 96-well plates (128 embryos per group). Locomotor activities following a series of light stimuli (a stimulus every 6 for 24 min) were measured as distance moved (mm) over time (seconds). At 96 hpf, E- (red) embryos treated with saline (upper panel) were 47% less responsive to light than were E+ embryos (E– area-under-curve, AUC: 2040±178; E+ AUC: 3877±228; p<0.0001). Embryos with morphological defects were not included in data analysis. E- behavior was restored using VitE injection into the yolk at the 1 cell stage (lower panel E– AUC: 2970±280; E+ AUC: 3340±226, not significantly different). B. Bar chart comparisons of respective time-course data. VitE (tocopherol)-injected E– and E+ embryo locomotor activities were not significantly different.
Fig. 7Locomotor response assay activity data showing neurobehavioral impairment. E– and E+ embryos (96 hpf) were analyzed in 96-well plates (128 embryos per group). Locomotor activities following a series of light stimuli (every 6 for 24 min) were measured as distance moved (mm) over time (seconds). E– (red) embryos treated with saline (upper panel) were 84% less responsive to light than were E+ (blue) embryos (E– area-under-curve, AUC: 572±72 E+ AUC: 3580±387; p<0.0001). Embryos with morphological defects were not included in data analysis. E– behavior was partially restored by approximately 50% following glucose injection into the yolk at 24 hpf (lower panel; E– AUC: 2502±150; E+ AUC: 3734±359; p<0.0001). Statistical significance was determined using a Kolmogorov–Smirnov test (p<0.01).
| Subject area | |
| More specific subject area | |
| Type of data | |
| How data was acquired | |
| Data format | |
| Experimental factors | |
| Experimental features | |
| Data source location | |
| Data accessibility |