| Literature DB >> 28751642 |
Boon Kee Beh1,2, Nurul Elyani Mohamad3, Swee Keong Yeap2,4, Huynh Ky5, Sook Yee Boo6, Joelle Yi Heng Chua6, Sheau Wei Tan2, Wan Yong Ho7, Shaiful Adzni Sharifuddin1, Kamariah Long1, Noorjahan Banu Alitheen8,9.
Abstract
Recently, food-based bioactive ingredients, such as vinegar, have been proposed as a potential solution to overcome the global obesity epidemic. Although acetic acid has been identified as the main component in vinegar that contributes to its anti-obesity effect, reports have shown that vinegar produced from different starting materials possess different degrees of bioactivity. This study was performed to compare the anti-obesity and anti-inflammatory effects of synthetic acetic acid vinegar and Nipa vinegar in mice fed a high-fat diet. In this work, mice were fed a high-fat diet for 33 weeks. At the start of week 24, obese mice were orally fed synthetic acetic acid vinegar or Nipa vinegar (0.08 and 2 ml/kg BW) until the end of week 33. Mice fed a standard pellet diet served as a control. Although both synthetic acetic acid vinegar and Nipa vinegar effectively reduced food intake and body weight, a high dose of Nipa vinegar more effectively reduced lipid deposition, improved the serum lipid profile, increased adipokine expression and suppressed inflammation in the obese mice. Thus, a high dose of Nipa vinegar may potentially alleviate obesity by altering the lipid metabolism, inflammation and gut microbe composition in high-fat-diet-induced obese mice.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28751642 PMCID: PMC5532206 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-06235-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1(A) BW measurements (week 0-week 33) of normal healthy mice, untreated mice,and 0.08-ml/kg BW synthetic acetic acid vinegar (SL)-, 2-ml/kg BW synthetic acetic acid vinegar (SH)-, 0.08-ml/kg BW Nipa vinegar (NL)- and 2-ml/kg BW Nipa vinegar (NH)-treated obese mice. Vinegar treatment was started at week 24 and ended at the end of week 33 (10 weeks). (B) Fat pad/BW ratios of normal healthy, untreated, and 0.08-ml/kg BW (SL)-, 2-ml/kg BW (SH), 0.08-ml/kg BW (NL) and 2-ml/kg BW (NH)-treated obese mice at week 33. (C) Food intake measurements of normal healthy, untreated, and 0.08-ml/kg BW (SL), 2-ml/kg BW (SH), 0.08-ml/kg BW (NL) and 2-ml/kg BW (NH)-treated obese mice. The data are presented as averages of biological replicates (n = 6) from the same treatment group. Values marked with * differed significantly compared to untreated groups (p < 0.05).
Figure 2(A) Serum lipid profile (total cholesterol, total TG, LDL and HDL). (B) Representative histopathological analyses of the liver and fat pad (CV represents the central vain; the arrow indicates a lipid droplet; magnification: 100x). (C) qPCR analyses of liver inflammation and obesity-related gene expression. (D) Serum LDH levels of normal healthy, untreated, and 0.08-ml/kg BW synthetic acetic acid vinegar (SL), 2-ml/kg BW synthetic acetic acid vinegar (SH), 0.08-ml/kg BW Nipa vinegar (NL) and 2-ml/kg BW Nipa vinegar NH-treated obese mice at week 33. The data are presented as averages of biological replicates (n = 6) from the same treatment group. Significant values were calculated relative to the untreated group (*p < 0.05). The data are presented as averages of biological replicates (n = 6) from the same treatment group. Values marked with * differed significantly compared to untreated groups (p < 0.05).
Serum leptin, glucose insulin, and liver/fat pad NO levels of normal healthy, untreated, 0.08-ml/kg BW synthetic acetic acid vinegar (SL)-treated, 2-ml/kg BW synthetic acetic acid vinegar (SH)-treated, 0.08-ml/kg BW Nipa vinegar (NL)-treated and 2-ml/kg BW Nipa vinegar NH-treated obese mice.
| Leptin (ng/mL) | Glucose (mmol/L) | Insulin (ng/mL) | NO (µM NO/mg protein) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Serum | Serum | Serum | Liver | |
| Normal | 8.23 ± 1.33* | 4.10 ± 0.31* | 0.91 ± 0.26* | 4.64 ± 0.50* |
| Untreated | 33.82 ± 2.96 | 7.10 ± 0.56 | 2.10 ± 0.46 | 6.27 ± 0.61 |
| SL | 31.32 ± 2.76 | 6.62 ± 0.33 | 1.84 ± 0.36 | 4.15 ± 0.48* |
| SH | 19.97 ± 2.87* | 5.97 ± 0.45 | 1.68 ± 0.37 | 2.88 ± 0.46* |
| NL | 29.71 ± 3.27 | 6.65 ± 0.47 | 1.89 ± 0.31 | 2.60 ± 0.15* |
| NH | 12.45 ± 4.52* | 4.88 ± 0.66* | 1.13 ± 0.24* | 2.46 ± 0.14* |
The data presented are represented as the mean ± SD of biological replicates of mice from the same treatment group. Values marked with * differed significantly compared to untreated groups (p < 0.05).
Figure 3Comparison of the relative abundances of gut microbiota at the (A) phylum and (B) genus levels of untreated, 2-ml/kg BW synthetic acetic acid vinegar (SH), and 2-ml/kg BW Nipa vinegar (NH)-treated obese mice at week 33 post-experiment using Illumina 16S rRNA metagenomics sequencing. The data are presented as the mean ± SD of biological replicates (n = 3) from the same treatment group. Values marked with * differed significantly compared to untreated groups (p < 0.05).
Major components of the standard diet and HFD.
| Standard pellet (gm%) (Gold coin, Malaysia) | D12492 (gm%) (Research diet, USA) | |
|---|---|---|
| Protein | 22 | 26.2 |
| Fiber | 5 | 6 |
| Carbohydrate | 49 | 26.3 |
| Fat | 3 | 34.9 |
| Others | 21 | 6.6 |