| Literature DB >> 28891931 |
Henry J Thompson1, John N McGinley2, Elizabeth S Neil3, Mark A Brick4.
Abstract
In developed countries which are at the epicenter of the obesity pandemic, pulse crop consumption is well below recommended levels. In a recent systematic review and meta-analysis of 21 randomized controlled clinical trials, pulse consumption was associated with improved weight control and reduced adiposity, although the underlying mechanisms were a matter of speculation. Common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) is the most widely consumed pulse crop and was the focus of this investigation. Using outbred genetic models of dietary induced obesity resistance and of dietary induced obesity sensitivity in the rat, the impact of bean consumption was investigated on the efficiency with which consumed food was converted to body mass (food efficiency ratio), body fat accumulation, adipocyte morphometrics, and patterns of protein expression associated with lipid metabolism. Cooked whole bean as well as a commercially prepared cooked bean powders were evaluated. While bean consumption did not affect food efficiency ratio, bean reduced visceral adiposity and adipocyte size in both obesity sensitive and resistant rats. In liver, bean consumption increased carnitine palmitoyl transferase 1, which is the rate limiting step in long chain fatty acid oxidation and also resulted in lower levels of circulating triglycerides. Collectively, our results are consistent with the clinical finding that pulse consumption is anti-obesogenic and indicate that one mechanism by which cooked bean exerts its bioactivity is oxidation of long chain fatty acids.Entities:
Keywords: adiposity; bean; fatty acid oxidation; pulse crops
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28891931 PMCID: PMC5622758 DOI: 10.3390/nu9090998
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 5.717
Effect of ad libitum feeding of cooked whole bean diet on weight gain and visceral adiposity.
| Diet | Initial Body Weight 1 (g) | Final Body Weight (g) | Weight Gain/d (g) | Tibia Length (mm) | Retro-Peritoneal Fat 2 (mg/mm) | Para-Metrial Fat (mg/mm) | Peri-Renal Fat (mg/mm) | Total Visceral Fat (mg/mm) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 65.0 ± 2.2 | 164.2 ± 4.6 | 3.8 ± 0.1 | 28.5 ± 0.3 | 21.8 ± 2.0 | 31.4 ± 2.7 | 7.0 ± 0.6 | 60.1 ± 4.8 |
| Bean | 62.2 ± 2.6 | 147.7 ± 4.8 | 3.3 ± 0.1 | 27.5 ± 0.3 | 10.5 ± 0.7 | 15.8 ± 1.2 | 4.3 ± 0.3 | 30.5 ± 1.9 |
| 0.43 | 0.02 | 0.001 | 0.019 | 7 × 10−5 | 7 × 10−5 | 0.001 | 3 × 10−5 |
1 Values are means ± SEM; 2 Units are mg mass divided by length of tibia in mm; Control n = 13, Bean n = 12.
Effect of ad libitum feeding of commercially processed bean powder on weight gain and visceral adiposity.
| Diet | Initial Body Weight 1 (g) | Final Body Weight (g) | Weight Gain/day (g) | Tibia Length (mm) | Retro-Peritoneal Fat 2 (mg/mm) | Para-Metrial Fat (mg/mm) | Peri-Renal Fat (mg/mm) | Total Visceral Fat (mg/mm) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 66.6 ± 2.4 | 187.2 ± 4.0 | 4.2 ± 0.1 | 29.7 ± 0.3 | 27.1 ± 2.6 | 45.5 ± 4.9 | 12.3 ± 1.2 | 84.9 ± 7.7 |
| Bean | 66.8 ± 2.5 | 163.6 ± 3.2 | 3.3 ± 0.1 | 29.0 ± 0.3 | 17.3 ± 1.3 | 30.4 ± 3.1 | 7.4 ± 0.7 | 55.1 ± 4.7 |
| 0.95 | 1.3 × 10−4 | 2 × 10−5 | 0.107 | 0.003 | 0.017 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
1 Values are means ± SEM; 2 Units are mg mass divided by length of tibia in mm; Control n = 13, Bean n = 13.
Effect of paired-feeding of commercially processed bean powder on food efficiency ratio and visceral adiposity.
| Diet 1 | Final Body Weight 1 (g) | Feed Efficiency Ratio (g) | Retro-Peritoneal Fat 2 (mg/mm) | Para-Metrial Fat (mg/mm) | Peri-Renal Fat (mg/mm) | Total Visceral Fat (mg/mm) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 230 ± 3 | 0.321 ± 0.008 | 77.1 ± 6.8 | 185.6 ± 14.7 | 25.9 ± 2.3 | 288.6 ± 22.3 |
| Bean | 226 ± 4 | 0.323 ± 0.006 | 67.5 ± 5.2 | 136.9 ± 5.3 | 13.8 ± 1.9 | 218.2 ± 9.4 |
| Control | 166 ± 4 | 0.251 ± 0.005 | 38.5 ± 4.4 | 88.2 ± 9.3 | 14.2 ± 0.8 | 140.8 ± 12.7 |
| Bean | 164 ± 4 | 0.260 ± 0.006 | 25.1 ± 4.3 | 59.9 ± 11.2 | 5.7 ± 0.8 | 90.7 ± 16.0 |
| Strain | 1.8 × 10−11 | 1.3 × 10−9 | 2.1 × 10−7 | 5.1 × 10−8 | 1.0 × 10−5 | 2.1 × 10−8 |
| Diet | 0.463 | 0.394 | 0.047 | 0.002 | 4.8 × 10−6 | 0.001 |
| Interaction | 0.837 | 0.571 | 0.734 | 0.354 | 0.309 | 0.537 |
1 Values are means ± SEM; 2 Units are mg mass divided by length of tibia in mm; 3 For factorial ANOVA, Strain is OR vs. OS, Diet is Control vs. Bean; OS Control n = 7, OS Bean n = 7, OR Control n = 6, OR Bean n = 6.
Figure 1Adipocyte image analysis of H&E stained parametrial fat. (A) OS Control n = 7; (B) OS Bean n = 7; (C) OR Control n = 6; (D) OR Bean n = 6; (E) Graph of adipocyte image analysis results. Factorial ANOVA: strain p = 0.0001, diet p = 0.002, interaction p = 0.112; * different than respective control (p < 0.05). Images are shown at 400× magnification for clarity, but analysis was done at 100× magnification, bars = 40 µM.
Protein expression in liver.
| Obesity Sensitive (OS) | Obesity Resistant (OR) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Protein 1 | Control | Bean | Control | Bean | Strain | Diet | Interaction |
| Ser79pACC | 1.32 ± 0.07 | 1.02 ± 0.10 | 1.08 ± 0.09 | 0.67 ± 0.04 | 0.001 | 2.2 × 10−4 | 0.486 |
| ACC | 1.17 ± 0.08 | 0.73 ± 0.05 | 0.81 ± 0.06 | 0.66 ± 0.11 | 0.014 | 0.001 | 0.083 |
| ACC Ratio | 1.14 ± 0.06 | 1.40 ± 0.08 | 1.34 ± 0.09 | 1.12 ± 0.13 | 0.671 | 0.839 | 0.018 |
| ACADL | 7.00 ± 0.50 | 7.91 ± 0.44 | 5.54 ± 0.20 | 6.08 ± 0.29 | 3.2 × 10−4 | 0.070 | 0.630 |
| ACSL4 | 1.49 ± 0.15 | 1.68 ± 0.03 | 1.12 ± 0.06 | 1.19 ± 0.06 | 4.0 × 10−5 | 0.119 | 0.468 |
| Thr172pAMPK | 0.93 ± 0.06 | 0.95 ± 0.08 | 0.95 ± 0.07 | 1.17 ± 0.10 | 0.144 | 0.137 | 0.245 |
| AMPK | 2.06 ± 0.10 | 2.25 ± 0.07 | 1.95 ± 0.06 | 2.27 ± 0.13 | 0.613 | 0.012 | 0.490 |
| AMPK Ratio | 0.46 ± 0.05 | 0.43 ± 0.04 | 0.49 ± 0.03 | 0.52 ± 0.04 | 0.162 | 0.969 | 0.452 |
| CD36 | 1.27 ± 0.19 | 1.87 ± 0.50 | 1.53 ± 0.13 | 1.69 ± 0.33 | 0.912 | 0.273 | 0.523 |
| CPT1 | 0.50 ± 0.05 | 0.67 ± 0.06 | 0.67 ± 0.06 | 0.81 ± 0.03 | 0.007 | 0.006 | 0.753 |
1 Values are peak heights normalized to a loading control, mean ± SEM; 2 For factorial ANOVA; Strain is OR vs. OS, Diet is Control vs. Bean; OS Control n = 7, OS Bean n = 7, OR Control n = 6, OR Bean n = 6.
Figure 2Effects on lipid metabolism (A) Serum triglycerides; different than respective control, p < 0.05); (B) Regression of sum visceral fat vs. serum triglyceride; (C) Regression of serum triglyceride vs. liver CPT1 expression; (D) Regression of sum visceral fat to liver CPT1 expression. LCL: lower confidence limit; UCL: upper confidence limit; LPL: lower prediction limit; UPL: upper prediction limit.
Effect of paired feeding of commercially processed bean powder on liver triglyceride.
| Diet 1 | Liver Triglyceride (mg/mg Protein × 10−2) 2 |
|---|---|
| Control | 3.8 ± 0.5 |
| Bean | 2.4 ± 0.3 |
| Control | 3.4 ± 0.2 |
| Bean | 3.2 ± 0.2 |
| Strain | 0.541 |
| Diet | 0.036 |
| Interaction | 0.076 |
1 Values are means ± SEM; 2 Units are mg liver triglyceride per mg total protein × 10−2; 3 For factorial ANOVA, Strain is OR vs. OS, Diet is Control vs. Bean. OS Control n = 7, OS Bean n = 7, OR Control n = 6, OR Bean n = 6.