| Literature DB >> 28453574 |
Yi-Yun Liu1,2,3, Xin-Yu Zhou1,2,3, Li-Ning Yang1,2,3, Hai-Yang Wang2,3,4, Yu-Qing Zhang1,2,3, Jun-Cai Pu1,2,3, Lan-Xiang Liu1,2,3, Si-Wen Gui2,3, Li Zeng1,2,3, Jian-Jun Chen2,3, Chan-Juan Zhou1,2,3, Peng Xie1,2,3.
Abstract
Major depressive disorder is a serious mental disorder with high morbidity and mortality. The role of social stress in the development of depression remains unclear. Here, we used the social defeat stress paradigm to induce depression-like behavior in rats, then evaluated the behavior of the rats and measured metabolic changes in the prefrontal cortex using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. Within the first week after the social defeat procedure, the sucrose preference test (SPT), open field test (OFT), elevated plus maze (EPM) and forced swim test (FST) were conducted to examine the depressive-like and anxiety-like behaviors. For our metabolite analysis, multivariate statistics were applied to observe the distribution of all samples and to differentiate the socially defeated group from the control group. Ingenuity pathway analysis was used to find the potential relationships among the differential metabolites. In the OFT and EPM, there were no significant differences between the two experimental groups. In the SPT and FST, socially defeated rats showed less sucrose intake and longer immobility time compared with control rats. Metabolic profiling identified 25 significant variables with good predictability. Ingenuity pathways analysis revealed that "Hereditary Disorder, Neurological Disease, Lipid Metabolism" was the most significantly altered network. Stress-induced alterations of low molecular weight metabolites were observed in the prefrontal cortex of rats. Particularly, lipid metabolism, amino acid metabolism, and energy metabolism were significantly perturbed. The results of this study suggest that repeated social defeat can lead to metabolic changes and depression-like behavior in rats.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28453574 PMCID: PMC5409051 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0176725
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Experimental flowchart.
BW, body weight; SPT, sucrose preference test; OFT, open field test; EPM, elevated plus-maze; FST, forced swimming test.
Fig 2Quality assessment of the social defeat model.
(A) Significant decreases in body weight were found inthe socially defeated group (n = 9) compared with the control group (n = 8). In the FST, the socially defeated group showed a significant decrease in sucrose preference (B) and sucrose consumption (C) compared with the control group. In the OFT, socially defeated rats did not significantly differ from control rats in total distance (D), time spent in center (E) and number of rearing behaviors (F). In the EPM, there were no significant differences between two experimental groups, including frequency (G) and time (H) spent in open arms, as well as in closed arms (I, J). In the FST, longer immobility time was found in socially defeated rats (K). *P< 0.05.
Fig 3Metabolomics analysis of prefrontal cortex samples from the social defeat and control groups.
(A)The principal components analysis score plot derived from GC-MS spectra showed clear differences between the social defeat group (n = 9) and the control group (n = 8). (B) Orthogonal partial least-squares discriminant analysis (OPLS-DA) model showing good predictability between the social defeat group and the control group. (C) The permutation plot indicated that the original OPLS-DA model was valid.
Differential metabolites in the prefrontal cortex detected by GC-MS.
| No | Metabolite | VIP | FC | Pathway | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | N-acetyl-L-aspartic acid | 1.62 | 2.20×10−3 | 0.28 | Amino acid metabolism |
| 2 | asparagine | 1.57 | 2.10×10−3 | 0.15 | Amino acid metabolism |
| 3 | succinate semialdehyde | 1.88 | 3.00×10−3 | -1.60 | Amino acid metabolism |
| 4 | picolinic acid | 1.13 | 4.03×10−2 | -0.76 | Amino acid metabolism |
| 5 | tyrosine | 1.03 | 8.00×10−4 | 0.26 | Amino acid metabolism |
| 6 | glucose-1-phosphate | 2.17 | 1.00×10−4 | -3.06 | Energy metabolism |
| 7 | creatine | 2.7 | 1.26×10−2 | 0.31 | Energy metabolism |
| 8 | succinic acid | 1.01 | 7.70×10−3 | -0.89 | Energy metabolism |
| 9 | octanal | 1.7 | 1.00×10−4 | 0.48 | Ethanol metabolism |
| 10 | α-D-glucosamine-phosphate | 1.27 | 7.90×10−3 | 0.14 | Carbohydrate metabolism |
| 11 | threitol | 1.13 | 4.30×10−3 | -1.25 | Carbohydrate metabolism |
| 12 | glycerol | 2.05 | 1.89×10−2 | 0.23 | Lipid metabolism |
| 13 | stearic acid | 2.17 | 2.00×10−4 | 0.34 | Lipid metabolism |
| 14 | palmitic acid | 1.76 | 2.20×10−3 | 0.37 | Lipid metabolism |
| 15 | arachidonic acid | 1.21 | 3.50×10−3 | 0.28 | Lipid metabolism |
| 16 | ethanolamine | 1.22 | 8.80×10−3 | 0.28 | Lipid metabolism |
| 17 | methylmalonic acid | 1.02 | 1.40×10−3 | 1.01 | Nucleotide metabolism |
| 18 | uracil | 1 | 6.10×10−3 | 0.48 | Nucleotide metabolism |
| 19 | maleimide | 1.02 | 2.60×10−2 | 0.42 | Organic synthesis |
| 20 | benzoic acid | 1.16 | 2.56×10−9 | -4.32 | Phenylalanine metabolism |
| 21 | 4-vinylphenol dimer | 1.22 | 4.00×10−4 | 0.53 | Phenylpropanoid biosynthesis |
| 22 | N-acetyl-L-leucine | 1.53 | 2.94×10−2 | 1.52 | — |
| 23 | N-acetyl-tryptophan | 1.12 | 1.39×10−2 | 0.39 | — |
| 24 | N-ethyl-glycine | 2.43 | 1.70×10−3 | 0.54 | — |
| 25 | aminooxyacetic acid | 2.97 | 1.30×10−3 | 0.55 | — |
a Only metabolites with variable influence on projection (VIP) values greater than 1.0 and P-values less than 0.05 were deemed to be statistically significant.
b Fold change was calculated as the average mass response (area) ratio between the two classes. The table displays the log2 transformation of the average fold changes (social defeated vs control).
Fig 4Heatmap visualization of metabolomics data for the prefrontal cortex.
The heatmap was constructed based on the differential metabolites. The data of heatmap were normalized by rescaling between 0 and 1. Distinct segregation was observed between control and socially defeated rats. Rows: metabolites; columns: samples. Color key indicates metabolite expression value: white, highest; red, lowest.
Five canonical pathways most significantly different between the socially defeated group and the control group, and the related molecular and cellular functions revealed by IPA analysis.
| Canonical pathways | Molecular and Cellular Functions | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Anandamide Degradation | 5.70×10−6 | Inflammatory Disease | 2.99×10−2–3.46×10−7 |
| 4-aminobutyrate Degradation I | 2.56×10−5 | Lipid Metabolism | 4.05×10−2–2.30×10−7 |
| Glutamate Degradation III | 3.75×10−5 | Molecular Transport | 4.72×10−2–2.30×10−6 |
| Stearate Biosynthesis I (Animals) | 6.84×10−4 | Small Molecule Biochemistry | 4.63×10−2–2.30×10−6 |
| GABA Receptor Signaling | 1.45×10−3 | Cell Cycle | 3.20×10−2–3.42×10−6 |
a The p-value is calculated using the right-tailed Fisher’s exact test by IPA. A smaller the p-value represents a stronger association between the metabolites and canonical pathways of IPA.
b The p-value is calculated using the right-tailed Fisher’s exact test by IPA. A smaller the p-value represents a stronger association between the molecular and cellular functions of IPA and the metabolites.
Fig 5Ingenuity pathways analysis of differential metabolites.
The network “Hereditary Disorder, Neurological Disease, Lipid Metabolism” was the most significantly altered network between socially defeated group (n = 9) and control group (n = 8), with a score of 26. The network includes 10 out of the 25 metabolites uploaded on the Ingenuity Pathway Analysis reference database. These metabolites are functionally related and have a role in the same network centred on NF-κB, MAPK and AKT signaling cascade. Red indicates metabolites that were upregulated, while green indicates metabolites that were downregulated, in the social defeat group compared with the control group.