| Literature DB >> 28704429 |
Annie E Newell-Fugate1,2, Katherine Lenz3, Cassandra Skenandore1, Romana A Nowak2, Bryan A White2,4, Andrea Braundmeier-Fleming3,4,5.
Abstract
Forty percent of American women are obese and at risk for type II diabetes, impaired immune function, and altered microbiome diversity, thus impacting overall health. We investigated whether obesity induced by an excess calorie, high fat diet containing hydrogenated fats, fructose, and coconut oil (HFD) altered glucose homeostasis, peripheral immunity, and urogenital microbial dynamics. We hypothesized that HFD would cause hyperglycemia, increase peripheral inflammation, and alter urogenital microbiota to favor bacterial taxonomy associated with inflammation. We utilized female Ossabaw mini-pigs to model a 'thrifty' metabolic phenotype associated with increased white adipose tissue mass. Pigs were fed HFD (~4570 kcal/pig/day) or lean (~2000 kcal/pig/day) diet for a total of 9 estrous cycles (~6 months). To determine the effect of cycle stage on cytokines and the microbiome, animals had samples collected during cycles 7 and 9 on certain days of the cycle: D1, 4, 8, 12, 16, 18. Vaginal swabs or cervical flushes assessed urogenital microbiota. Systemic fatty acids, insulin, glucose, and cytokines were analyzed. Pig weights and morphometric measurements were taken weekly. Obese pigs had increased body weight, length, heart and belly girth but similar glucose concentrations. Obese pigs had decreased cytokine levels (IL-1β, TNF-α, IL-4, IL-10), arachidonic acid and plasma insulin, but increased levels of vaccenic acid. Obese pigs had greater urogenital bacterial diversity, including several taxa known for anti-inflammatory properties. Overall, induction of obesity did not induce inflammation but shifted the microbial communities within the urogenital tract to an anti-inflammatory phenotype. We postulate that the coconut oil in the HFD oil may have supported normal glucose homeostasis and modulated the immune response, possibly through regulation of microbial community dynamics and fatty acid metabolism. This animal model holds promise for the study of how different types of obesity and high fat diets may affect metabolism, immune phenotype, and microbial dynamics.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28704429 PMCID: PMC5509134 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0179542
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Morphometric measurements for lean and obese Ossabaw pigs.
| Measurement | Lean | Obese | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Crown to Rump Length (cm) | 84.8 ± 1.3 | 92.7 ± 1.3 | <0.0001 |
| Heart Girth (cm) | 85.6 ± 1.3 | 99.3 ± 1.3 | <0.0001 |
| Belly Girth (cm) | 87.1 ± 1.3 | 102.9 ± 1.3 | <0.001 |
| Height (cm) | 58.6 ± 1.1 | 58.5 ± 1.5 | >0.05 |
| Body weight (kg) | 57.8 ± 5.4 | 73.5 ± 1.8 | <0.0001 |
Average glucose concentration and change in insulin, HOMA-IR, and free fatty acids from beginning to end of trial for lean and obese pigs.
| Common name | Lipid Numbers | Lean | Obese | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Glucose (mg/dL) | N/A | 64.0 ± 2.1 | 66.2 ± 1.7 | 0.38 |
| HOMA-IR | N/A | -0.401 ± 0.5781 | 0.265 ± 0.425 | 0.5 |
| Myristic acid | C14:0 | -0.20 ± 0.13 | -0.19 ± 0.10 | 0.95 |
| Myristoleic acid | C14:1 | 0.00 ± 0.25 | 0.40 ± 0.21 | 0.3 |
| Palmitic acid | C16:0 | -13.12 ± 5.09 | -0.48 ± 4.16 | 0.15 |
| Palmitoleic acid | C16:1 | 0.00 ± 0.30 | 0.64 ± 0.24 | 0.19 |
| Stearic acid | C18:0 | -0.46 ± 4.00 | -2.36 ± 3.27 | 0.74 |
| Oleic acid | C18:1 | 3.99 ± 7.77 | 1.83 ± 6.34 | 0.84 |
| Linoleic acid | C18:2 | 3.14 ± 3.31 | 0.76 ± 2.70 | 0.62 |
| γ-Linolenic acid | C18:3 | 0.00 ± 0.11 | 0.17 ± 0.09 | 0.33 |
| Arachidic acid | C20:0 | 0.00 ± 0.06 | 0.02 ± 0.05 | 0.81 |
| Paullinic acid | C20:1 | 0.00 ± 0.00 | 0.00 ± 0.00 | 1 |
| Eicosadienoic acid | C20:2 | -0.03 ± 0.10 | 0.07 ± 0.08 | 0.53 |
| Eicosatrienoic acid | C20:3n-3 | 0.00 ± 0.00 | 0.00 ± 0.00 | 1 |
| Behenic acid | C22:0 | 0.00 ± 1.64 | 1.64 ±1.34 | 0.5 |
| Eicosahexaenic acid | C22:1+C20:5 | 0.00 ± 0.00 | 0.00 ± 0.00 | 1 |
| Lignoceric acid | C24:0 | 0.47 ± 0.36 | 0.03 ± 0.29 | 0.41 |
| Nervonic acid | C24:1 | 0.13 ± 0.52 | -0.03 ± 0.43 | 0.83 |
| Docosahexaenoic acid | C22:6 | -0.11 ± 0.13 | 0.24 ± 0.10 | 0.12 |
Fig 1Serum cytokine measurements throughout cycle 7 (dietary maintenance) in obese and lean pigs.
(A) Levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines IL-1β and TNF-α. (B) Levels of anti-inflammatory cytokines IL-10 and IL-4. Results are expressed as least squared mean fluorescent intensity ± SEM (obese, n = 3; control, n = 2). All data have been normalized to cycle 1 day 1 for each individual animal. * indicates P<0.05.
Fig 2PCoA plots of distances between pig urogenital bacterial communities.
Variances explained are shown on the axes. Plots include all vaginal swab and cervical flush samples taken of each pig throughout the course of the study. (A) Comparison of lean and obese animals throughout the whole study. (B) Comparison of all samples from both obese and lean animals during the induction versus the maintenance phase of the diet. Each point represents one sample. The color key provides information to determine the influence of features on spatial placement.
Fig 3PCoA plots of distances between pig urogenital bacterial communities based on sample type and phase of diet study (A = lean and B = obese).
Fig 4Alpha-diversity on number of OTUs observed.
Results are expressed as least squared mean ± SEM (control, n = 3; obese, n = 2).
Fig 5Taxon summary of relative abundance within urogenital microbial communities of control and obese pigs shown as an average of all animals from each treatment group.
Taxa with the highest abundance is presented in the key. (A) Phylum-level relative abundance. (B) Genus-level relative abundance.
Fig 6Relative abundance of prominent phyla and Lactobaciullus genus in vaginal swabs and cervical flushes of both treatment groups during induction and maintenance phases.
Data are shown as least squares mean ± SEM.
Bacterial taxa up-regulated and down-regulated in obese compared to lean pigs.
| Upregulated | |
|---|---|
| Firmicutes;Clostridia;Clostridiales;Lachnospiraceae;Lachnospiracea_incertae_sedis | 22.47 |
| Firmicutes;Clostridia;Clostridiales;Clostridiales_Incertae_Sedis_XI;Finegoldia | 18.92 |
| Proteobacteria;Gammaproteobacteria;Pasteurellales;Pasteurellaceae;Actinobacillus | 18.20 |
| Firmicutes;Clostridia;Clostridiales;Peptostreptococcaceae;Peptostreptococcus | 17.15 |
| Bacteroidetes;Bacteroidia;Bacteroidales;Porphyromonadaceae;Parabacteroides | 15.91 |
| Bacteroidetes;Flavobacteria;Flavobacteriales;Flavobacteriaceae;Wautersiella | 11.83 |
| Proteobacteria;Gammaproteobacteria;Xanthomonadales;Sinobacteraceae;Hydrocarboniphaga | 7.83 |
| Bacteroidetes;Sphingobacteria;Sphingobacteriales;Sphingobacteriaceae;Pedobacter | 5.91 |
| Proteobacteria;Gammaproteobacteria;Xanthomonadales;Xanthomonadaceae;Stenotrophomonas | 5.19 |
| Bacteroidetes;Bacteroidia;Bacteroidales;Porphyromonadaceae;Tannerella | 4.73 |
| Firmicutes;Clostridia;Clostridiales;Lachnospiraceae;Roseburia | 4.73 |
| Proteobacteria;Gammaproteobacteria;Pseudomonadales;Moraxellaceae;Moraxella | 4.14 |
| Firmicutes;Bacilli;Bacillales;Alicyclobacillaceae;Tumebacillus | 4.08 |
| Firmicutes;Bacilli;Lactobacillales;Aerococcaceae;Aerococcus | 3.92 |
| Firmicutes;Negativicutes;Selenomonadales;Veillonellaceae;Veillonella | 3.57 |
| Proteobacteria;Alphaproteobacteria;Rhizobiales;Hyphomicrobiaceae;Gemmiger | 3.40 |
| Bacteroidetes;Sphingobacteria;Sphingobacteriales;Chitinophagaceae;Sediminibacterium | 3.35 |
| Proteobacteria;Betaproteobacteria;Burkholderiales;Comamonadaceae;Variovorax | 3.25 |
| Firmicutes;Bacilli;Bacillales;Planococcaceae;Lysinibacillus | 2.96 |
| Proteobacteria;Alphaproteobacteria;Rhizobiales;Methylobacteriaceae;Methylobacterium | 2.69 |
| Bacteroidetes;Flavobacteria;Flavobacteriales;Flavobacteriaceae;Chryseobacterium | 2.43 |
| Firmicutes;Bacilli;Lactobacillales;Streptococcaceae;Lactococcus | 0.46 |
| Bacteroidetes;Bacteroidia;Bacteroidales;Prevotellaceae;Paraprevotella | 0.34 |
| Firmicutes;Bacilli;Lactobacillales;Streptococcaceae;Streptococcus | 0.33 |
| Proteobacteria;Gammaproteobacteria;Pseudomonadales;Pseudomonadaceae;Pseudomonas | 0.30 |
| Bacteroidetes;Bacteroidia;Bacteroidales;Porphyromonadaceae;Paludibacter | 0.19 |
| Bacteroidetes;Bacteroidia;Bacteroidales;Porphyromonadaceae;Porphyromonas | 0.18 |
| Firmicutes;Clostridia;Clostridiales;Clostridiaceae_1;Clostridium_sensu_stricto | 0.11 |
*Taxon has pro-inflammatory/pathogenic properties.
#Taxon has anti-inflammatory/commensal properties.